This randomized controlled trial, involving parents seeking to resolve their separation-or divorce-related disputes and reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV), compared return-to-court (traditional litigation, n ϭ 67 cases) to 2 mediation approaches designed to protect parent safety (i.e., shuttle, n ϭ 64 cases; videoconferencing, n ϭ 65 cases) at a court-annexed mediation division. We present immediate outcomes, which showed some favorable results for mediation. Both mediation approaches were perceived as safe by mediators, and parents felt safer in mediation than in traditional litigation. Parents in mediation were also more satisfied with the process than parents in traditional litigation. Return-to-court cases took 3 times as long to reach final resolution as mediation cases. Mediators tended to prefer shuttle over videoconferencing, and videoconferencing cases were half as likely to reach agreement as cases in shuttle. Through coding the content of the document that resolved case issues, we found no statistically significant group differences in legal custody, physical custody, or parenting time arrangements, and few differences in the likelihood of the document specifying a variety of arrangements (e.g., how to handle missed parenting time) or including safety provisions (e.g., supervised child exchanges). We conclude that in cases with parents reporting concerning levels of IPV, when both parents are independently willing to mediate, mediation designed with strong safety protocols and carried out in a protected environment by well-trained staff may be an appropriate alternative to court.

No abstract

We report 1-year follow-up outcomes from a randomized controlled trial involving parents resolving separation or divorce-related disputes and reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV). We compared traditional litigation to two mediation approaches designed to protect parent safety (i.e., shuttle and videoconferencing) at a court-annexed mediation division. The sample was not nationally representative, limiting generalizability. We found no significant differences across conditions in parent reports of satisfaction with the process, level of continuing IPV or interparental conflict, parenting quality, parent functioning, or child functioning. Parents in traditional litigation, relative to parents in mediation, reported significantly more social support. Also, parents in videoconferencing, versus those in shuttle, mediation reported more PTSD symptoms from IPV. Based on coding of legal records, no significant condition differences emerged in relitigation rates in the family court case or charges of study case IPV-related incidents. Given few differences across study conditions, including in satisfaction levels, in contrast to the immediate outcomes, the 1-year follow-up findings do not clearly favor mediation or litigation. We conclude that when both parents in cases with reported high IPV are willing to mediate, mediation designed with safety protocols and carried out in a protected environment by well-trained staff may be an appropriate alternative to traditional litigation. We consider implications of our findings; for example, we discuss implications of the form of videoconferencing mediation examined for conducting online mediation, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Family courts are increasingly interested in online parenting programs for divorcing and separating parents, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. To our knowledge, no previous study has evaluated the barriers to and facilitators of parent participation in these programs for family law cases. We interviewed 61 parents in the midst of family law cases regarding their perspectives. While many parents viewed online parent programs positively (e.g., convenient), they also reported barriers to participation (e.g., technology problems). We offer recommendations (e.g., communication about program benefits) to support courts as they decide whether to continue ordering online parent programs following the pandemic.

No abstract