Critical Review of Research Evidence of Parenting Coordination's Effectiveness

Parenting coordination (PC) has been in use since the mid‐1980s, but research on its effectiveness is sorely lacking. We review the extant research organized by three themes: (1) parenting coordinators’ perceptions of their role and function; (2) professionals’ and parents’ views and perceptions of PC; and (3) outcomes of PC, including some measures of effectiveness of the PC process. While these studies provide some insight into PC effectiveness, there is still a lack of research that uses objective outcome measures of efficacy and that considers characteristics of the co‐parent dyad, personality difficulties, or the professional discipline of the parenting coordinator. Future research recommendations are discussed.     

Parenting Coordination In Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence

Parenting Coordination is a “hybrid legal‐mental health role that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management, dispute resolution and, often times, decision‐making functions (AFCC, 2019, https://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/Guidelines%20for%20PC%20with%20Appendex.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-190220-990 ). This article addresses issues that arise when the case has allegations or findings of intimate partner violence (IPV). Considerations of the type of IPV, the severity, timing, perpetrator and effects on coparenting are discussed in the context of the parenting coordinator's role. Through screening and assessment, we differentiate the kinds of cases with the presence of IPV where a PC may be effective as opposed to other IPV cases that may not predict success for retaining a PC.     

Duel or Dual: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Parenting Coordination for Uber‐Conflicted Parenting Relationships

Parenting coordination for families struggling with severe conflict can be challenging for both the family and the parenting coordinator (PC). These families can put an inordinate strain on the PC as they lobby their positions and try to bias the PC against the other parent. The interdisciplinary dual‐PC model is an innovative approach using aspects of the collaborative practice model to enhance the efficacy of the process while utilizing the strengths of both disciplines. Through a case illustration, the identification of the family dynamics and situations that give rise to use of this approach shall become clear. This article also demonstrates the potential benefits to both the family and the PCs. All aspects synthesize into a cohesive, well‐balanced approach to the uber‐conflicted parenting relationships.     

Emerging Parenting Coordination Practices Around the Globe: What We Have Learned

Parenting coordination is emerging in numerous countries around the globe as a response to the need to protect children in families whose parents experience high conflict following their separation or divorce. This article describes the different trends in the implementation of parenting coordination programs in Canada, Spain, and Italy and the socio‐legal contexts in which they have evolved. An analysis will also be presented of the unique challenges faced by these countries and the ensuing debates on issues related to the referral process, legal procedures, decision‐making authority, judicial immunity, confidentiality, and professional requirements and training for the appointment of parenting coordinators. The authors will present what has been learned from their respective experiences and make recommendations to promote continued development.     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.

     

The Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference: A Grassroots Alternative for Resolving High‐Conflict Parenting Disputes in Lean Times

This article describes a court‐connected alternative dispute resolution program, the Interdisciplinary Settlement Conference. The key feature of this program is the participation of two volunteer panelists, one a family law attorney and the other a mental health professional experienced in parenting disputes, who assist the judicial officer in working with the parties and their attorneys (if any) to reach a resolution of their parenting dispute. Significantly, in addition to addressing the parties’ legal issues, the panelists also address the parties’ psychological and emotional issues relevant to the dispute on an as‐needed basis. Findings from six years of experience with the program are discussed, including evidence of high satisfaction with the program, a high rate of settlement, a decrease in relitigation, and a concomitant savings of scarce judicial resources.     

Parenting Coordination and Confidentiality: A (Not‐so) Delicate Balance

This article describes the current state and range of information protection in the growing number of states and Canadian provinces that employ parenting coordination in an effort to reduce repeat custody litigation. The predominant approach—in which what is revealed during the process is not confidential—is analyzed in terms of its compatibility with the parenting coordinator's multiple tasks of educating parents, seeking to facilitate agreements, and, if necessary, providing the court with a report, a recommended decision, or an arbitrated result. Using a case scenario with multiple parts, the article then examines such confidentiality schemes in practice by providing an action‐oriented series of questions that illustrate how much of this topic must be resolved through a parenting coordinator's exercise of discretion in the absence of rule clarity. The article then raises a number of policy questions about whether current parenting coordination confidentiality norms strike the optimal or even the correct balance on information protection and concludes by identifying several policy options that might address these questions.     

A Multidisciplinary Perspective on the Role,Functions, and Effectiveness of Parenting Coordination

Based on a survey conducted in 2018 in collaboration with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ (AFCC) Task Force on Parenting Coordination, this paper explores issues related to the process and perceived outcomes of parenting coordination for families post separation and divorce. The views expressed emerge from a diverse and multidisciplinary sample (n = 289) from legal, mental health, and conflict resolution backgrounds. Almost half of all participants (46%) were mental health professionals (psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker), followed by attorneys (28%), family mediators (17%) and judges (5%). Over half of all participants identified as a parenting coordinator (PC) (53%). Based on the results, participants had the highest level of agreement that the goal of parenting coordination should be to assist in sheltering the children from parental conflict and to help the coparents reduce interparental conflict. Participants assigned greater success to parenting coordination when there was demonstration that coparenting conflict decreased. Several differences were noted among professional disciplines and specifically between legal and mental health professionals. Mental health professionals rated higher on the effectiveness of PCs to help children adjust and limit their involvement in the parental conflict, while legal professionals focused on PCs’ ability to help families resolve legal disputes. The implications of the results are discussed, including how best to measure the success of parenting coordination and to prioritize outcomes related to the success of parenting coordination across disciplines to create greater consistency in the field.     

Building and Enhancing Efficacious Coparenting in Parenting Coordination

Parenting coordination is a dispute resolution process to assist the subset of separating/divorcing parents who remain entrenched in high conflict coparenting post‐separation/divorce. Based on factors known to impact positive child outcomes, its goals include assisting parents to protect children from their conflict and implementing a framework that will assist the child to have a good relationship with both parents. Despite significant efforts, parenting coordination often falls short of achieving its intended goals, which include not only healthy child adjustment but also efficacious coparenting, which is itself an important mediator and moderator of child outcomes. This article raises questions and concerns about the extent to which child outcomes may be limited if the goals of parenting coordination are limited to establishing and implementing a disengaged, parallel model of coparenting, while avoiding or giving up on efforts to build and enhance cooperative coparenting. Given preliminary findings indicating some parents note change here express dissatisfaction with the process and outcomes, it is necessary to consider whether the seemingly intractable subset of parents referred for parenting coordination might benefit from something more or different. We discuss two innovations: One aims to strengthen individual parent readiness and responsiveness and the other brings parents together in a child‐centered team‐building approach. Though cooperative coparenting is a challenging and unrealistic goal for some parents, further research is necessary to understand more fully which interventions help which families, when and in what manner.     

Perspectives of Mothers,Fathers, and Parenting Coordinators Concerning the Process and Impact of Parenting Coordination

In a small pilot study, 31 interviewees, including 12 parenting coordinators, 11 mothers, and 8 fathers representing 14 different parenting coordination cases retrospectively described child and family functioning both pre‐ and post‐parenting coordination in phone interviews. They also detailed how often and how well different issues that arose during the parenting coordination work (acrimony, problem‐solving communication, triangulation of the child into the conflict) were actively addressed. Parties tended to view coparenting more positively when reflecting on post‐ compared with pre‐intervention, but reported less change in child adjustment. Discrepancy among same‐case informant reports was common. Parenting coordinators (PCs) consistently rated their interventions as more frequent and successful than did parents. Mothers and fathers largely disagreed on interventions they experienced. While this small N pilot can offer no definitive conclusions, it underscores need for research and wisdom in including both parents' perspectives.     

非诉讼方式（ADR）在私法领域的必然趋势探讨

本文以主观正义和社会和谐为评价尺度，分析了诉讼和非诉讼解纷方式的实际效果。非诉讼方式具有灵活、多样、低廉的特色，可以采用成文法和习惯法作为划分权利义务的依据。它突出当事人的自治，依靠当事人的平等、理性的对话，在诉讼泛滥和法律中心主义的社会背景下，能比诉讼更高效、和谐地解决私法领域纠纷。同时，非诉讼方式能够培养起有良好社会自治能力的社会组织，能推进社会治理机制的成熟。     

The Issue of Ethics and Authority for Licensed Mental Health Professionals Involved in Parenting Coordination

We examine the ethics of licensed mental health professionals accepting the authority inherent in binding arbitration when acting as parenting coordinators (PCs). PCs execute their duties under the umbrella of their professional identity and standards of practice. Fundamental differences exist in how the law and the behavioral sciences conceive human behavior and authority, in particular, authority by role and authority by status. Ethical concerns arise when licensed mental health professionals accept the authority to render binding judgments and ask clients to surrender their autonomy through informed consent. We offer recommendations for PCs to avoid these ethical complications.     

Co‐parenting in a Highly Conflicted Separation/Divorce: Learning about Parents and their Experiences of Parenting Coordination,Legal, and Mental Health Interventions

Sixty high‐conflict separated/divorced co‐parents completed surveys investigating characteristics and dynamics (narcissism, empathy, conflict) that were examined in relation to co‐parenting style and parents' experiences of parenting coordination, legal, and mental health interventions. Study findings for this sample did not support common notions found in the literatures on parenting coordination and high‐conflict divorce that suggest these parents are often narcissistic or low in empathy. Findings pertaining to all high‐conflict participant experiences revealed the presence of common elements across aspects of practitioners and interventions with which they were both satisfied and dissatisfied.     

论ADR对重塑我国非诉讼纠纷解决体系的意义

非诉讼纠纷解决方式 (ADR)是美国近 30年来异军突起的诉讼外纠纷解决机制。它是各种不违背法律强制性规定的 ,由纠纷双方当事人自主选择并控制的 ,替代诉讼程序解决民事纠纷方式方法的总称。ADR具有灵活解决纠纷、合理分配司法资源、降低纠纷解决成本等功能。由于我国传统法律文化等因素和ADR具有较大的亲和性 ,引进国外ADR的先进经验对重塑我国非诉讼纠纷解决体系具有重大的现实意义     

A Paradigm Shift in the Practice of Family Law: A Response to Mosten and Traum

In their article, Interdisciplinary Teamwork in Family Law Practice, Mosten and Traum promote the use of an interdisciplinary, team‐based approach to family law practice. This commentary focuses on the two pronged shift in the current zeitgeist of family law practice. First, Mosten and Traum guide us away from an historically adversarial approach to family law practice, in which attorneys advocate for the legal rights of a single client, to a more holistic approach in which the focus is on the Family Global Case. Furthermore, the push toward Family Global Case shifts the focus away from discrete legal issues associated with reorganization to empowering families to self‐determine through their reorganization. This shift follows the movement in both medicine and mental health away from direct intervention for people with disorders to promoting wellness for at‐risk yet healthy individuals. The second prong of Mosten and Traum's approach is a movement toward more collaborative interdisciplinary functioning. However, the shift in the practice of family law from the sole practitioner working alone to being one member of a broader multidisciplinary team focusing on the future well‐being of the family brings with it not only issues of professional role definitions but also the development of a new combined set of ethics and models for training. These are discussed in detail.     

Book Review: How Mediation Works: Theory,Research, and Practice by Stephen B. Goldberg,Jeanne M. Brett,Beatrice Blohorn‐Brenneur,With Nancy H. Rogers

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.