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.     

An Exploratory Study of Custody Challenges Experienced by Affirming Mothers of Transgender and Gender‐Nonconforming Children

Family courts have lacked familiarity with evidence‐based recommendations regarding the best interests of transgender and gender‐nonconforming (TGNC) children, resulting in some affirming parents losing physical and/or legal custody. This exploratory, qualitative study with 10 affirming mothers of TGNC children who had experienced custody‐related challenges reported on salient themes, including “blame” for causing children's gender nonconformity, coercion by ex‐partners, bias in the courts, negative impact on children, emotional and financial toll on participants, and the critical importance of adequate resources. Findings indicate the need for better‐educated family court professionals, as well as socioemotional support and financial and legal assistance for affirming parents of TGNC children.     

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.     

Parental Denigration: A Form of Conflict that Typically Backfires

Parental denigration is a phenomenon characterized by disparaging comments made by one parent about the other parent in front of their children. It is an emerging area of research with implications that could either follow a parental alienation perspective or a conflict perspective. In two prior studies of 648 and 994 young adults, denigration was found to be (1) measured reliably and perhaps validly; (2) reciprocally occurring; (3) related to children feeling more distant from both parents, particularly the more frequent denigrator; and (4) associated with various measures of maladjustment. These results held in married and divorced families, for mothers and fathers, in group and individual analyses, across own and sibling reports, and across studies. In a new study, parents also showed agreement in reported denigration, with divorced (particularly litigating) parents appearing motivated to underreport their own denigration behaviors and overreport their co‐parent's denigration behaviors. Across all three studies, results consistently aligned with a conflict perspective and indicated that denigrating one's co‐parent appears to boomerang and hurt the parent's own relationship with the children rather than distance children from the co‐parent.     

Trauma‐Informed Interventions in Parent–Child Contact Cases

Parent–child contact problems may arise in the context of high conflict separation/divorce dynamics between parents. In cases where there are parent–child contact problems and children resist or refuse contact with one of their parents, there may also be incidents of child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, or compromised parenting that can be experienced by a parent or child as traumatic. The circumstances around separation and/or post‐divorce often result in intense stress for families. In this paper we distinguish between the stressful circumstances that may arise as a result of high interparental conflict and pulls for alignment from a parent, and the real or perceived trauma as a factor which contributes to resistance or refusal of a child to have contact with a parent. Interventions to address both trauma responses and the resist‐refuse dynamics are differentiated and discussed. After screening and assessment, the intent is to treat trauma responses with short‐term, evidence‐based therapy, either before or concurrent with co‐parent and family intervention.     

The Application of the Polyvagal Theory to High Conflict Co‐Parenting Cases

Families, litigants, lawyers, advisors embroiled in cases of complex divorce with child contact issues, manage many stressors at once. Participants involved with these types of cases are often exhausted and burned‐out from the long‐term battles of prolonged litigation. The inability to problem‐solve or even communicate effectively reflects the chaos and traumatic stress of the experience and can be seen as a hallmark of this population. When people are consistently stressed, there is a breakdown of communication skills that can create an immunity to receiving help from any direction. Often all parties involved appear to be both hyper‐alert to potential threat, and hyper‐reactive to one another: no one feels safe. Stephen Porges' Polyvagal Theory is premised on the idea that neuroception plays a key role in the nervous system's ability to assess danger in the environment. Neuroception is a neurophysiological response that does not involve cognitive processing. When cognitive processing is not involved, the result may lead to misinterpretation of, and an inability to accurately assess situations: executive functioning including rational thinking and communication skills are lost to physiological response. Rather than evaluating families and individuals involved in the aforementioned complex divorce cases through the lens of pathology, Polyvagal Theory explains their behavior as an adaptive stress reaction. Utilizing Polyvagal Theory offers a promising path to treatment with these families and diminishing the poor communication and the heightened emotion, assisting practitioners in understanding the impact of neurobiological response in managing stress and trauma. Applying Polyvagal Theory to court involved populations can help both litigants and practitioners recognize the role of the autonomic nervous system, providing the opportunity to understand, to self‐regulate, and to improve communication and decision making.     

The Street‐Level Response to Relationship Breakdown: A Lesson for National Policy?

In January 2001, the Government announced its intention to repeal the divorce reforms contained in the Family Law Act 1996. The ‘story’ of the Act is largely one of compromise: between a backward‐looking idealism, casting divorce law in the role of supporting marriage, and a more forward‐facing pragmatism, accepting the necessity of engaging with social reality. The result was legislation that sought both to save and end marriages – although a key reason for proposing the Act's repeal was an alleged failure to save marriages. This national approach to relationship breakdown contrasts sharply with that at ‘street‐level’, where work aims to provide a service catering to the diversity of modern family life. The apparent success of this approach prompts the question of whether there are lessons for national policy. Drawing on a series of interviews with national policy‐makers and street‐level workers, this paper compares national and local perspectives and suggests that a new mind‐set and approach, akin to that operating on the ground, is needed at national level if workable divorce law reform is to be achieved.     

What the #@!* are they Fighting About?!?: Reflections on Fairness,Identity, Social Capital,and Peacemaking in Family Conflicts

Peacemaking is particularly challenging in family conflicts. Deeply held feelings about identity, fair treatment, moral issues, and protecting social capital often cause people in conflict to make self‐defeating decisions. There are, however, techniques that enable mediators, Collaborative Practice professionals, and other peacemakers to overcome the settlement barriers created by these strongly held views. These techniques include those pioneered by psychotherapists using the Internal Family Systems model, which enables parties to see that their strongly held views comprise only part of the constellation of feelings that they have about the conflict.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Parents who feel that their role as father or mother is in danger often find it difficult to focus on the children's best interests.
• The “rule of reciprocity” causes people who feel wronged to exact even harsher punishment on those who harmed them.
• The concept of “social capital” explains why people care so passionately about whether they are treated fairly and about their reputation for fairness.
• The Internal Family Systems model helps peacemakers to understand how to work with the parties’ ambivalence about settlement versus courtroom vindication.