A GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: LESSONS FROM 25 YEARS OF PRACTICE

What are the essential elements of a successful child protection mediation program? What outcomes are we seeking? How do we define success? How do these inform or direct program development so that it supports these outcomes? How do we know if it is working? And, how do we start out on the right foot? We are in the enviable position now, after 25 or so years, to benefit from lessons learned from the experiences of many programs. This article provides a 25‐year perspective on key elements that have contributed to the success of child protection mediation programs.     

TRENDS IN CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: RESULTS OF THE THINK TANK SURVEY AND INTERVIEWS

Several child protection conflict resolution program directors and researchers talked about how best to initiate a networking effort for their field. In September 2007, their conversations culminated in a Think Tank in Columbus, Ohio. This was a collaboration of judges, program directors, researchers, and representatives from national organizations that work in child protection. Participants felt this was a successful effort and that the meeting provided networking opportunities and many provocative discussions. In order to facilitate a meeting that would be meaningful for the Think Tank participants, input was solicited from as many constituent groups as possible. Surveys and interviews were completed in the summer of 2007, which shed light on themes that were ripe for discussion and improvement. This article details the survey and interview results and includes some brief comments from the Think Tank itself. Thoughts about future research in child protection conflict resolution are also provided.     

THE CALM AFTER THE STORM: USING MEDIATION TO RESOLVE PARENTING DISPUTES IN THE WAKE OF NATURAL DISASTERS

Hurricane Katrina not only tore apart communities along the Gulf Coast, it displaced hundreds of thousands of families throughout the country. Included in the massive numbers of displaced families were children from divorced, separated, or unmarried parents. As a result, many children have since relocated far away from one of their parents without court permission, causing an influx of parenting disputes among the unmarried parents. Litigation concerning parenting disputes that follow natural disasters is not only expensive, but is emotionally taxing on both parents and children and floods the already drained court system. This Note discusses alternative ways in which parenting disputes can be resolved following natural disasters. It explains how children are affected by relocating away from one of their parents and how those effects are comounded by natural disasters. Further, it explains how alternative dispute resolution methods help alleviate the effects of parenting disputes, specifically relocation disputes, on children. Finally, this Note proposes that all parents should be mandated to mediate any parenting disputes following natural disasters.     

A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

PICKING CHERRIES WITH BLINDERS ON: A COMMENT ON ERICKSON ET AL. (2007) REGARDING THE USE OF TESTS IN FAMILY COURT*

Erickson, Lilienfeld, and Vitacco's (2007/this issue ) review of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests invites legal and mental health professionals to rely on it as an objective guide for selecting, using, and admitting psychological tests in family court matters. Unfortunately, their discussion is marred by a pronounced bias in favor of multiscale, objective personality inventories and against performance‐based or projective instruments. This bias is evident not only in their unbalanced emphasis on the strengths of the former and weaknesses of the latter, but also in their use of selective citations and loaded language in launching what amounts to a polemical argument in support of tests that they favor. Their discussion of the Rorschach inkblot test is particularly misleading. This article refutes their unwarranted criticisms of the theoretical underpinnings of the Rorschach test, its research base, its norms, its interscorer reliability, the validity of its scores, and its admissibility in the courtroom. The value of multimethod assessments that include the use of direct clinical observation of performance under standardized conditions in custody evaluations is highlighted.     

TESTING SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY USING REINFORCEMENT'S RESIDUE: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS OF SELF‐REPORTED THEFT AND MARIJUANA USE IN THE NATIONAL YOUTH SURVEY*

Critics have expressed concerns regarding measurement strategies or analytic techniques often used in social learning research (Horan and Phillips, 2003; Krohn, 1999; Sampson, 1999; Tittle, 2004). In response to these concerns, this study tests the hypothesized causal relationships among reinforcement, general definitions, and self‐reported crime (theft and marijuana use) using a multilevel modeling approach with longitudinal data from the first five waves of the National Youth Survey (NYS), as well as with indirect parent and friend reinforcement measures that incorporate both the assumed products of reinforcement (expected consequences of behavior) and the efficacy of reinforcement (expected influence of the reinforcement source). Within‐subject analyses present a challenge to the theory as social learning variables do not covary significantly over time with criminal offending rates. Between‐subject analyses offer support for the theory as across‐person differences in average parent and friend reinforcement are significantly related to offending rates, and these reinforcement–crime relationships are mediated partially or fully by learned definitions. Implications of these findings are discussed.