Efficacy of family mediation and the role of family violence: Study protocol

Background Family law reforms in Australia require separated parents in dispute to attempt mandatory family dispute resolution (FDR) in community-based family services before court attendance. However, there are concerns about such services when clients present with a history of high conflict and family violence. This study protocol describes a longitudinal study of couples presenting for family mediation services. The study aims to describe the profile of family mediation clients, including type of family violence, and determine the impact of violence profiles on FDR processes and outcomes, such as the type and durability of shared parenting arrangements and clients’ satisfaction with mediated agreements. Methods A mixed method, naturalistic longitudinal design is used. The sampling frame is clients presenting at nine family mediation centres across metropolitan, outer suburban, and regional/rural sites in Victoria, Australia. Data are collected at pre-test, completion of mediation, and six months later. Self-administered surveys are administered at the three time points, and a telephone interview at the final post-test. The key study variable is family violence. Key outcome measures are changes in the type and level of acrimony and violent behaviours, the relationship between violence and mediated agreements, the durability of agreements over six months, and client satisfaction with mediation. Discussion Family violence is a major risk to the physical and mental health of women and children. This study will inform debates about the role of family violence and how to manage it in the family mediation context. It will also inform decision-making about mediation practices by better understanding how mediation impacts on parenting agreements, and the implications for children, especially in the context of family violence.

Screening for partner violence among family mediation clients: Differentiating types of abuse

Family mediation is mandated in Australia for couples in dispute over separation and parenting as a first step in dispute resolution, except where there is a history of intimate partner violence. However, validation of effective well-differentiated partner violence screening instruments suitable for mediation settings is at an early phase of development. This study contributes to calls for better violence screening instruments in the mediation context to detect a differentiated range of abusive behaviors by examining the reliability and validity of both established scales, and newly developed scales that measured intimate partner violence by partner and by self. The study also aimed to examine relationships between types of abuse, and between gender and types of abuse. A third aim was to examine associations between types of abuse and other relationship indicators such as acrimony and parenting alliance. The data reported here are part of a larger mixed method, naturalistic longitudinal study of clients attending nine family mediation centers in Victoria, Australia. The current analyses on baseline cross-sectional screening data confirmed the reliability of three subscales of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), and the reliability and validity of three new scales measuring intimidation, controlling and jealous behavior, and financial control. Most clients disclosed a history of at least one type of violence by partner: 95% reported psychological aggression, 72% controlling and jealous behavior, 50% financial control, and 35% physical assault. Higher rates of abuse perpetration were reported by partner versus by self, and gender differences were identified. There were strong associations between certain patterns of psychologically abusive behavior and both acrimony and parenting alliance. The implications for family mediation services and future research are discussed.