Evaluation of court-initiated randomized controlled trial of online parent programs for divorcing and separating parents.

We conducted an evaluation of a court-initiated randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes for parents assigned to either a no-program control group or one of two online parenting programs-Two Families Now (TFN) or Children in Between (CIB)-among 221 parents in initial divorce or separation court cases. We gathered parent report measures of family functioning at study entry, completion of program, and 1-year following study entry. We also gathered and coded court records to capture the content of the document resolving issues and occurrence of relitigation in the following year. All findings became statistically nonsignificant when a Bonferroni correction was employed. Before correction, however, a few statistically significant differences between groups emerged. Immediately following program completion, there were no study condition differences on measures of parental beliefs and intentions regarding parenting. One year following study entry, three statistically significant differences between program and no-program conditions emerged. Those assigned to a program reported significantly less intimate partner abuse and had less relitigation in court than those in the no-program condition, both with small effect sizes. Contrary to hypotheses, parents assigned to a program reported less social support than parents in the no-program condition. Overall, the findings do not provide strong support for the two investigated brief online parenting programs, demonstrating the need for continued rigorous evaluation of online parenting programs for divorcing and separating parents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Lessons for a COVID-19 era: Barriers and facilitators to court ordered online parenting programs for divorcing and separating parents.

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.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Family Mediation: An Examination of Multiple Methodological Approaches Using Item Response Theory.

Many divorcing/separating parties seeking mediation to resolve family-related issues report intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization from the other party in the case. It is imperative that mediation staff screen parties for IPV so they can make informed decisions regarding how to proceed with mediation. Existing IPV screens for mediation have significant limitations. We examined three methodological approaches using item response theory that address these limitations by increasing the efficiency and clinical utility of an existing standardized IPV screen for mediation, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (N = 904 mediating parties). We identified three subsets of items, with initial evidence for their validity, focused on helping mediation staff identify high levels of IPV or parties at risk for potentially negative mediation outcomes or needing specialized safety accommodations in mediation. Clinical recommendations are provided indicating which approach is most promising to be used in mediation settings. Overall, findings help advance understanding of how item response theory methodology can enhance the precision of IPV screening in mediation.

Randomized control trial follow-up: Online program and waiting period for unmarried parents in Title IV-D Court.

Despite a lack of research on parent programs for separating unmarried parents, many judicial officers mandate participation. Rudd, Holtzworth-Munroe, Reyome, Applegate, and D'Onofrio (2015) conducted the only randomized controlled trial of any online parent program for separating parents, ProudToParent.org (PTP), and related court processes (e.g., having a waiting period between the establishment of paternity and the court hearing regarding child related issues vs. having the hearing the same day). They recruited a unique sample of 182 cases in a Title IV-D Court (i.e., a court for primarily low income parents) (Authorization of Appropriations, 42 U.S.C. § 651, 2013), in which paternity was previously contested but subsequently established via court-ordered genetic testing. Unexpectedly, cases assigned to PTP and a waiting period were the least likely to reach agreement at their court hearing. In the current study, we extend these results to examine the impact of the study conditions on relitigation in the year following the court hearing; only 11.2% of cases filed a motion, and 7.8% had a hearing. The group that was least likely to reach full initial agreement (i.e., assigned to PTP and the waiting period) were the most likely to relitigate. Further, controlling for study conditions, reaching a full agreement in the Title IV-D court decreased the odds of having a court hearing in the following year. Reaching agreements on the specific issues involved in such cases (e.g., custody, child support) reduced the likelihood of both motions and hearings in the year after the Title IV-D hearings. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Randomized control trial: Online parent program and waiting period for unmarried parents in Title IV-D court.

Despite a lack of research on parent education programs for unmarried parents, many judicial officers mandate participation. We recruited an understudied sample likely at high risk for negative outcomes-182 court cases involving unmarried parents on government assistance in which paternity was contested and then established via genetic testing ordered by the court. This 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact on initial litigation outcomes of two factors: (a) participation in an online parent education program or not and (b) having a waiting period between the establishment of paternity and the court hearing concerning child-related issues or not. Using an intent-to-treat framework, we found that among cases not assigned to the program, there was no difference in the rate of full agreement on child-related issues (e.g., child support, custody, parenting time) when comparing cases assigned to a waiting period and cases not assigned to a waiting period. In contrast, for cases assigned to the program, cases also assigned a waiting period were less likely to reach a full agreement than cases that had their hearing on the same day. In addition, cases in the "program and waiting period" condition were less likely to return to court for their hearing than cases in the "no program and waiting period" condition. In exploratory analyses of the subsample of cases in which both parents were present at the court hearing, the pattern of results remained the same, although the findings were no longer statistically significant.

Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC): reliability and validity of a new intimate partner violence screen.

We investigated reliability and validity of the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC), a screening interview for intimate partner violence and abuse (IPV/A) in family mediation settings. Clients at three family mediation clinics in the United States and Australia (N = 391) provided reports of the other parent's IPV/A. Internal consistency of the total screen was excellent. A confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence that the MASIC assesses seven types of IPV/A: psychological abuse, coercive controlling behaviors, threats of severe violence, physical violence, severe physical violence, sexual violence, and stalking. Sex differences on differing types of violence victimization were generally consistent with previous research. Higher levels of victimization predicted self-reported consequences of abuse (e.g., fear, injuries). More abusive parties, as identified by their partners on the MASIC, had more Protective Orders and No Contact Orders and criminal convictions and crimes potentially related to IPV/A. Results provide initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC but more research is needed.