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.     

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.     

Toward Better Outcomes for Families Through Innovative Dispute Resolution Programs in England

This article explores and shares the learning from two of Cafcass’ innovative dispute resolution pilot programs. The programs aim to improve outcomes for families against the backdrop of rising private law demand in England, while keeping the child at the center. The Positive co‐Parenting Programme pilot provides a structured intervention to reduce conflict and promote timely resolution for children and families in complex cases. The Support with Making Child Arrangements pilot explores whether the provision of a package of support to parents ahead of the first court hearing can help them come to safe agreements about their children without the need for court intervention.     

Evaluation of the University of Denver's Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: The First Out‐of‐Court Divorce Option1

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is the first U.S. alternative dispute resolution model to provide legal dispute resolution, therapeutic, educational, and financial services to separating and divorcing families in a single location outside the courthouse. Data were collected on 82 families at entry and service completion: service utilization, process timeliness, family satisfaction, and outcomes. Parents were highly satisfied with the process and demonstrated significant improvements in personal well‐being, co‐parenting, parenting quality, and reported reductions in children's anxiety/depression. Community partners felt RCSDF was a positive innovation in their community. The RCSDF model represents a culture shift from an adversarial process to a cohesive alternative that supports the well‐being of all family members.     

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on A Collaborative and Child‐Focused Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is a teaching model for providing interdisciplinary services to separating and divorcing families. The model was developed by the Honoring Families Initiative at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. Services are provided by graduate and law students at the University of Denver, working side‐by‐side with a supervising licensed attorney, psychologist, and social worker. The experiential and interdisciplinary model of teaching and providing direct client services is the first of its kind in the United States. RCSDF students and staff seek to empower parents to make positive decisions about their family's future in a supportive and educational environment.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• The current system of preparing graduate and law students for careers in family law is in need of improvement. This article provides information for educators and the family law community about the impact of interdisciplinary and experiential learning for students.
• Parents going through the transition of separation or divorce experience psychological and financial stressors that can create serious behavioral and adjustment issues for their children. The RCSDF works in a holistic manner with parents and children to minimize the levels of stress and anxiety during the transition.

     

A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Two Court‐Connected Programs for High‐Conflict Families

Parents who experience great amounts of legal conflict as they dissolve their relationship and arrive at their parenting arrangements require an outsize proportion of courts’ time and resources. Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that conflict has a deleterious effect on their children. We partnered with the family court to conduct a study comparing the effectiveness of two programs for families deemed by their judge to be high conflict and thereby mandated to a program. Both involved one 3‐hour session; the existing program, Parent Conflict Resolution (PCR), used exhortational lecture and video; the newly designed experimental program, Family Transitions Guide (FTG), based on motivational interviewing, employed exercises attempting to get parents to decide for themselves what they needed to do for the sake of their children. Parents were assigned at random to one of the two programs (the literature often terms this a randomized clinical trial) and were interviewed just before it began and 9 months later, as was a child. Results showed that child's report of their own well‐being was significantly improved by FTG as compared to PCR and that these effects were mediated by children feeling less caught in the middle. On several variables, parent report showed that parents in PCR as compared to FTG felt decreased problems in co‐parenting and less interparental conflict, although the effects were not consistent across mother and father report. There was also evidence of diminished legal conflict over 9 months in FTG as compared to PCR.     

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.     

Crossover Cases of High‐Conflict Families Involving Child Protection Services: Ontario Research Findings and Suggestions for Good Practices

Child protection services (CPS) are increasingly becoming involved in high‐conflict separations and the related custody and access proceedings. CPS involvement is often necessary to respond to abuse or neglect allegations or protect children from emotional harm. However, these crossover cases are very challenging for family justice professionals. This article reports on research on crossover cases in Ontario, including an analysis of reported court decisions, a survey of CPS staff, and interviews with family justice professionals. We suggest clearer CPS policies; improved understanding of respective professional roles; CPS summary reports for family courts; increased interagency coordination, communication, and training; and use of judicial case management.