No abstract

Objectives: This qualitative synthesis explores the voices of children in the context of child custody disputes over the last 20 years. The purpose was to (1) systematically retrieve qualitative studies to explore children's views and preferences in the context of decision making postseparation and divorce and (2) explore how children's voices are being heard or not. Method: Qualitative studies were identified through a systematic retrieval process using an inclusion and exclusion criteria. A meta-ethnographic approach was used for the qualitative synthesis of included studies. Results: Thirty-five qualitative studies were included in the final analysis, involving 1,325 children from 11 countries. Conclusions: Findings reveal that children generally want to be engaged in the decision-making process regarding custody and access, even if they are not making the final decisions. Implications for social work practice and policy are discussed, including providing space for children's voices within the context of this work.

Social science research and the courts have begun to recognize the special challenges posed by "high-conflict" separations for children and the justice system. The use of "high conflict" terminology by social science researchers and the courts has increased dramatically over the past decade. This is an important development, but the term is often used vaguely and to characterize very different types of cases. An analysis of Canadian case law reveals that some judges are starting to differentiate between various degrees and types of high conflict. Often this judicial differentiation is implicit and occurs without full articulation of the factors that are taken into account in applying different remedies. There is a need for the development of more refined, explicit analytical concepts for the identification and differentiation of various types of high conflict cases. Empirically driven social science research can assist mental health professionals, lawyers and the courts in better understanding these cases and providing the most appropriate interventions. As a tentative scheme for differentiating cases, we propose distinguishing between high conflict cases where there is: (1) poor communication;(2) domestic violence; and (3) alienation. Further, there must be a differentiation between cases where one parent is a primary instigator for the conflict or abuse, and those where both parents bear significant responsibility.f cre_1319 403..416