AFCC

Family Court Review– Jan 2015 Table of Contents

Robert Hughes Jr Significant Research Findings , ,

  1. Editorial Note

    1. You have free access to this content
      January 2015 (pages 1–5)Andrew I. Schepard and Robert E. Emery

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12125

      1. Abstract
      2. Full Article (HTML)
      3. Enhanced Article (HTML)
      4. PDF(35K)

Perspectives

    1. You have free access to this content
      The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on A Collaborative and Child-Focused Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution (pages 7–22)Melinda Taylor, Stacy Harper, Lori Jurecko, Julie Melowsky and Chelsea Towler

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12127

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(88K)

  3. Special Feature: Reigniting the Relocation Debate

    1. Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence-Based Approach (pages 23–39)

      Patrick Parkinson and Judy Cashmore

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12128

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(100K)
      • References

       

    2. Presumptions, Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law (pages 40–55)Rollie Thompson

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12129

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(107K)

       

    3. Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson (pages 56–65)

      Patrick Parkinson and Judy Cashmore

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12130

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(69K)
      • References

       

  4. Additional Articles

    1. A Rigorous Quasi-Experimental Design to Evaluate the Causal Effect of a Mandatory Divorce Education Program (pages 66–78)

      Stephanie R. deLusé and Sanford L. Braver

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12131

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(122K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions

       

    2. A Mentalizing-Based Approach to Family Mediation: Harnessing Our Fundamental Capacity to Resolve Conflict and Building an Evidence-Based Practice for the Field* (pages 79–95)

      Jill Howieson and Lynn Priddis

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12132

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(103K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions

       

       

    3. Cognitive-Behavioral Methods in High-Conflict Divorce: Systematic Desensitization Adapted to Parent–Child Reunification Interventions (pages 96–112)

      Benjamin D. Garber

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12133

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(104K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions

       

    4. Parenting Plans for Special Needs Children: Applying a Risk-Assessment Model(pages 113–133)

      Daniel B. Pickar and Robert L. Kaufman

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12134

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(155K)
      • References
      • Request Permissions

      Does Level of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Predict the Content of Family Mediation Agreements? (pages 134–161)

    5. Fernanda S. Rossi, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe and Amy G. Applegate

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12135

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(175K)

  5. The Bookshelf

    1. You have free access to this content
      Intimate Associations: The Law and Culture of American Families by J. Herbie DiFonzo and Ruth C. Stern, University of Michigan Press (pages 162–164)Marsha Kline Pruett

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12136

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(33K)

  6. Student Notes

    1. You have free access to this content
      The Chat Room Moderator: Creating a Duty for Parents to Control Their Cyberbully(pages 165–179)Jonathan Heller

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12137

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(109K)

       

    2. Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors (pages 180–197)

      Jennifer Nadraus

      Article first published online: 16 JAN 2015 | DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12138

      • Abstract
      • Full Article (HTML)
      • Enhanced Article (HTML)
      • PDF(112K)

Law and Scientific Evidence about Shared Parenting

Robert Hughes Jr Coparenting, fathers, Legal issues, mediation , , , , , , , ,

A new report to be published in Family Court Review explores the state of the law and the scientific evidence regarding shared parenting.  This is an important review of the scientific and legal landscape.  See Closing the Gap: Research, Policy, Practice and Shared Parenting AFCC Think Tank Final Report  by MK Pruett, JH DiFonzo

Coparenting Children with Disabilities by Jeremy Kanter

kanter2 Uncategorized , ,

Although divorce rates are high among parents of children with disabilities (e.g., Hartley, Barker, Seltzer, Greenberg,  Bolt, Floyd, & Orsmond, 2010) coparenting education classes are just beginning to develop tracks, components, or programs for separating or divorcing parents who have children with disabilities. At the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) annual conference last month, the fact that coparenting education classes have neglected to attend to special circumstances linked to coparenting a child with a disability was discussed in a few of the sessions I attended.  I followed up with a few coparenting education classes when I returned from the conference and was energized to learn that some of the online programs are beginning to address this issue!

Michelle Muncy of Online Parenting Programs is one example of an online program that is planning to develop an online coparenting education program for parents who are coparenting children with disabilities. Focus on Kids, an online coparenting education class developed by Dr. David Schramm and colleagues at The University of Missouri is another example. Focus on Kids now offers fact sheets for families with special circumstances. The fact sheets that Dr. Schramm and colleagues have created for divorcing parents who have children with disabilities cover a range of topics that are especially relevant to this special circumstance; some of the topics include:

 

  • Custodial rights or what to expect as a primary caregiver of a child with a disability
  • How to divide medical costs for children with disabilities
  • The children’s cognitive capacity to understand their parents’ divorce
  • Special issues that need to be documented in parenting plans
  • Issues specific to children who have life-threatening, chronic, psychological & behavioral disabilities

With the high divorce rates for parents of children with disabilities, some of these issues in the Focus on Kids’ fact sheets are crucial components to coparenting education. Although many parents experience similar challenges when going through the separation or divorce process, it is important for programs to address the unique needs and challenges linked to families with special circumstances. Special circumstances are not limited to children with disabilities; coparenting when intimate partner violence, alcoholism, or military duties influence parents’ roles also provide unique challenges in the separation processes. In some situations, one parent may be largely absent from the child’s life, and these families may benefit from additional support in educational settings (online or face-to-face). Although the transition to tailoring information to families with special circumstances has been slow, it is promising to see that programs have begun to address these issues!

How Extensive Can a 4 Hour Program Be? by Jill Bowers

jillbowers Coparenting, Divorce Education, Uncategorized , , ,

Although laws vary from state to state, 4 hours is the most common, mandated dosage for divorce or coparenting education classes.  In other words, many parents (of children under 18 years old)  are required to spend approximately 4 hours in a coparenting education class before a judge will grant the divorce.  The coparenting education classes are designed to help parents manage conflict and communicate cooperatively with their coparent to ensure their child(ren) successfully adjust with transitions throughout the divorce or separation process. But is 4 hours enough?

Reviews of divorce education programs reveal that coparenting education classes largely cover topics surrounding children’s adjustments and how parents can help the.  Scholars suggest that these classes could be improved with additional content that includes more emphasis on adult and court-focused content (see Blaisure & Geasler, 1996 or Bowers et al., 2011). Discussions in the divorce literature and presentations at the 2013 AFCC Conference indicate that coparenting education programs would benefit from including more focus on the following topics:

  • The emotional turmoil surrounding adult adjustments to divorce, including differences in love anger and sadness surrounding “the leaver” and “the left” (see Emery’s book, Renegotiating Family Relationships)
  • Parenting plans
  • Court processes, such as difficult terminology, what happens with mediation, or examples of how parents could handle the legal aspects of divorce
  • Topics specific to families with special circumstances (i.e., children with special needs, domestic violence, military family relationships, substance abuse); for a few examples, see Holtzworth-Munroe, 2011 for discussion of court issues and domestic violence

These are just a few of the topics that scholars have recommended for improvements to program content. Additionally, researchers call for skill-building techniques (e.g., opportunities for parents to practice approaching or reacting to their coparent; see Geasler and Blaisure’s 1998 work or Salem and colleagues’ 2013 article for examples).  At the same time, if parents are only required to attend 4 hours of education (or less in some states), program administrators struggle to fit all of the topics parents could benefit from within that time frame. Administrators of online coparenting education programs could potentially have additional hours or sections of content that parents could explore on their own.  In fact, some programs do offer additional content (for example, programs may offer 6, 8, or 10 hour versions), but parents generally complete what they are required to take to fulfill court mandates.  Thus, implications for the future of coparenting education include, but are not limited to:

  • policy makers to consider extending the amount of time parents are required to spend in these classes,
  • researchers, court personnel, and program administrators to work together to ensure the content that is being covered within the 4 hour (or required time frame) is comprehensive, provides opportunities for skill-building, and gets at parents needs beyond child-focused content, and
  • program administrators need to “beef up” their content and design techniques, providing text, videos, or other materials that are not too simplistic and opportunities for parents to interact.  If parents are engaged with the material, they will be more likely to continue exploring through the site and or enticed to come back for more.

Googling “divorce”

Robert Hughes Jr Divorce Education , , ,

I have attended several sessions on at the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) about doing education, mediation and other court services online, but the comment that has provoked the most thought for me was by Colin Rule (see colinrule.com; download slides )who asked the following question:

“What do you want to say to the person whose first attempt to find information is to google “divorce?”  

He asked this to a room of professionals many of which have begun to work with divorcing clients online.  This question reminds me that many people who google “divorce” are not going to find most professional services.  Even if we are online we may or not be very savvy at making our work visible in ways that potential clients find us.  Likewise, if they do find us they may or may not find anything useful on our websites because we may not yet have thought about what those initial questions or needs are.

This is a big challenge for us.  We are competing in a worldwide marketplace that often does not favor professionals or in which professional services are not very sophisticated in their use of online technology services.

So what do you want your first conversation to be?

For a lighter take on “social media and experts, see Josh Gad’s comments… “with social media who needs experts.”

Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Conference this week

Robert Hughes Jr Legal issues ,

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is holding their annual conference this week.

“AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the premier interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.  AFCC members are the leading practitioners, researchers, teachers and policymakers in the family court arena.”

AFCC publishes a variety of resources for professionals and family members dealing with court related issues especially regarding divorce, custody, mediation and improving court practices.

Parent Coordination Guidelines

Robert Hughes Jr Communication/Conflict, Coparenting, Legal issues , , , , ,

“Parent coordination is  a nonadversarial dispute resolution process that is court ordered or agreed on by divorced and separated parents who have an ongoing pattern of high conflict and/or litigation about their children.”  APA, 2012.

This is the latest effort to provide more systematic and structured guidelines for professionals such as mediators, psychologists, therapists and attorneys who are providing parenting coordination for divorcing families who are unable to resolve conflicts.  One especially important aspect of these guidelines is an expectation that professionals involved in parenting coordination will work actively with other professionals who are involved in cases.  This is critical for families to not be buffeted by competing and/or conflicting advice from others involved in trying to help families manage or resolve conflict.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) has also produced a series of guidelines for parenting coordination.

AFCC has also produced guidelines and standards for divorce mediation, custody evaluation and other court related services to children and families.