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.     

The Parenting Coordinator as Peacemaker and Peacebuilder

Parenting coordinators serve as case managers in high‐conflict families with the goal of protecting the children from parental conflict. Parenting coordinators are peacemakers and peacebuilders who identify and help set up structures in the family to support peace between the parents. The family court should promote and develop equipoise in litigants and professionals. Because parents who continue in conflict postdecree often have difficulty empathizing with their co‐parents and with their children, they might benefit from meditation training to increase mindfulness, empathy, and compassion. Self‐compassion training could also increase well‐being and more effective co‐parenting and aid in building peace in the family.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Parenting coordination is a child‐focused intervention with high‐conflict parents that can help protect children from their parents' conflict.
• Parenting coordinators are peacemakers who resolve disputes between the parents and facilitate negotiation and communication between them and help them make decisions.
• Parenting coordinators are also peacebuilders who help identify and build structures and processes in the family system to strengthen interparental peace.
• Equipoise can be developed in litigants and professionals through mindfulness and compassion training.
• Family court judges can work with parenting coordinators in a team approach, in a manner similar to what occurs in problem‐solving courts, to benefit the families and the judicial system.

     

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.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

“MORE OF A STREET COP THAN A DETECTIVE”: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF PARENTING COORDINATORS IN NORTH CAROLINA

This research project examined roles and functions of parenting coordinators (PCs) identified by AFCC's Guidelines for Parenting Coordination and other literature. The researcher used a semi‐structured interview schedule that included information about practices, procedures, and a series of five case‐based vignettes that contained commonly occurring ethical and legal dilemmas in PC practice. The results found that PCs generally saw their role as enforcers of existing orders and primarily used skills in conflict management, parent education, and information coordination with other professionals. PCs would use arbitration powers to make minor decisions or refer to court as a last resort.     

New AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (2019)

In 2017, AFCC President Annette Burns (2017–18) commissioned a Task Force, led by Dr. Debra Carter, to review the many changes and developments in parenting coordination that had occurred across the United States, in Canada, and across the world in the approximately 12 years since the 2005 Parenting Coordination Guidelines were released. Though primarily commissioned to update and revise the 2005 Guidelines, the Task Force also identified emerging issues in need of exploration – the use of technology in parenting coordination, parenting coordination as an intervention when intimate partner violence is a component of the dynamic, the importance of multicultural awareness and responsiveness, and the overall impact of the statutes, rules, and regulations that had evolved in significantly varying forms since parenting coordination first presented as an intervention for court‐involved families. The work of the Task Force, including the new (2019) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination, is presented.     

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.     

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.     

TRAINING,SKILLS, AND PRACTICES OF PARENTING COORDINATORS: FLORIDA STATEWIDE STUDY

This report details findings from the nation's first statewide study on parenting coordination. A survey was presented to all known practicing parenting coordinators (PCs) in Florida (N = 207), with 67 (32%) responding. Data concerning PC demographics, how PCs do their work, and how they perceive their clients at different stages of the parenting coordination process suggest substantial similarity between mental health and family law professionals in almost every realm of questioning. Study limitations, implications for further research, and practice considerations are discussed.     

Court‐Based Interventions in Spain for Families in Divorce Transition: Challenges in the Implementation of (Co)‐Parenting Coordination

Families facing separation or divorce in Spain encounter a number of obstacles, including a primarily adversarial and slow justice system, nonspecialized courts and judges, and a lack of resources to help them through the process. Recent legislation at the regional level (autonomous communities) is moving toward emphasizing shared parental responsibility and introducing parenting plans, while at the national level, legislation advances slowly. One of the main challenges professionals are facing in high‐conflict couple separation is protecting children from the effects of being in the middle of their parents’ conflict. Traditional psychological, legal, and social services are insufficient to support parents and protect their children from interparental hostile conflict—which can be exacerbated by litigation, professional intervention, domestic violence, or addiction. This article illustrates, through a case study, the implementation of parenting coordination in Spain. Different jurisdictions in Spain are slowly implementing (co‐)parenting coordination, an in‐depth intervention designed to support these families. The objective is to help families focus on children's needs and follow the court‐approved parenting plans or court orders, reduce relitigation, and improve parental communication and conflict resolution skills. This article analyzes different aspects and challenges relating to the implementation of parenting coordination in Spain. Recommendations are then made to address them.     

DEFINING PARENTING COORDINATION WITH STATE LAWS

Parenting coordination is a new trend in defining ADR interventions to help reduce parenting conflicts between court‐involved parents. This writing identifies core elements of parenting coordination as defined by various current state statutes and the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. Exploration of the formalization of parenting coordination provides heuristic reading for those initiating statutory regulations in other states as well as the possibility for development of a uniform law.     

Parenting Stress,Parenting Behavior,and Children’s Adjustment in Families Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence

Children exposed to intimate partner violence are known to experience a number of negative outcomes, including behavioral and emotional problems; however, possible mechanisms accounting for this relationship are unclear. There is considerable evidence that parenting stress has a direct effect on child adjustment problems and on parenting behaviors; parenting behaviors, in turn, have been repeatedly shown to be related to child outcomes. The hypothesis that parenting mediates the relationship between parenting stress and child behavioral and emotional problems according to Abidin’s (Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21:407–412, 1992) model was tested in a sample of 190 battered women and their 4-to12-year-old children. No support for mediation was found for either mother- or child-reported outcomes. Parenting stress had a strong direct effect on child behavioral and emotional problems. These findings have implications for the viability of Abidin’s model, as well as for interventions with battered women that address parenting stress. The authors would like to thank the women, children, and staff at the shelters for battered women who participated in this study.     

ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ACTING AS A PSYCHOLOGIST PARENT COORDINATOR IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

The use of Psychologist Parent Coordinators in child custody cases (called Special Masters in California) is becoming increasingly prevalent across the country. This postdivorce parenting coordination role is a legal/psychological hybrid, demanding knowledge and skill in legal domains (legal procedure, relevant case law, etc.), psychological domains (child development, family systems, etc.), and dispute resolution (mediation and settlement processes). Situated in the interface of legal and psychological paradigms, Parent Coordination may be reviewed by multiple legal and psychological regulatory bodies. Coming from varying perspectives, the practice guidelines and mandates of these legal, ethical, and licensing agencies impose multiple standards of review of Parent Coordination. A brief overview of the legal and psychological review processes applicable to Special Master work in California, as they relate to common issues that confront the Parenting Coordinator across the country, is the focus of this article. They suggest that the current lack of coordination of review processes creates a minefield of professional risk for the psychologist who chooses to practice in this role.     

Parenting Plans for Special Needs Children: Applying a Risk‐Assessment Model

Family courts are seeing an increasing number of separating or divorced families who have a special needs child. These cases present complex challenges for family law professionals charged with crafting parenting plans based on best interests standards. For many of these children, the typical developmentally based custodial arrangements may not be suitable, given the child's specific symptoms and treatment needs. We present a model for understanding how the general and specific needs of these children, as well as the demands on parents, can be assessed and understood in the context of divorce. This includes an analysis of risk and protective factors that inform timeshare and custodial recommendations and determinations. The risk assessment model is then applied to three of the most commonly occurring childhood neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders likely to be encountered in family court, namely, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorders, and autistic spectrum disorders.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• There has been a dramatic rise in the population of children with neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and medical syndromes whose parents are disputing custody in the family courts.
• Family law professionals of all disciplines should develop a fundamental knowledge base about the most commonly seen special needs children in family court, such as those with neurodevelopmental conditions like autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and severe depressive disorders (especially with teenagers), which may involve suicidal or self‐harming behaviors.
• Commonly recommended parenting plans may be inappropriate for many special needs children, as some function significantly below their chronological age and pose extreme behavioral challenges.
• A systematic analysis of risk and protective factors should inform timeshare arrangements and determinations with this varied population, including the safety of the child and severity of the disorder, parental commitment and availability to pursue medical, educational, and therapeutic services, the parental attunement and insightful about the problem, and the differential parenting skills of each parent.

     

Association for Conflict Resolution Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordinators

On November 6, 2014, the AFCC Board of Directors endorsed the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination, including ethical principles for Eldercaring Coordinators, training protocols, and court pilot project template. The collaboration between Task Forces created by ACR and the Florida Chapter of AFCC, composed of twenty U.S./Canadian and twenty Florida‐wide organizations, produced both an overarching guide to assist in the development of programs and a more detailed model addressing state/province‐specific needs and characteristics. Eldercaring coordination is a dispute resolution option specifically for high‐conflict cases involving the care, needs, and safety of elders.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• There are currently no dispute resolution options for parties involved in high‐conflict cases regarding the care, needs, and safety of an elder.
• The ACR Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination address the discrepancies between dispute resolution options available for parents in conflict regarding their minor children and mature families with unresolved concerns about the care, needs, and safety of an elder.
• The ACR Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination provide information regarding the ethical practice of eldercaring coordination including a specific definition, recommended qualifications, ethical practices, grievance procedures, training protocols, and a court pilot project template.
• The practice of eldercaring coordination will address the influx of court cases expected as baby boomers continue to age, reducing delays in court hearings, as parties will have the opportunity to resolve their concerns without continuous court attention.
• As of June 2015, five states began Pilot Projects on Eldercaring Coordination, which will be studied by an independent research group to enhance the progress of the process and to develop the best practices for initiating the programs elsewhere.

     

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.