Parenting Coordination: Practice, Research, & the Interface between Psychology and Law

1. Parenting Coordination: Practice, Research, & the Interface between Psychology and Law APA Pre-Convention Institute Westin Harbour Castle Toronto, Ontario August 5, 2009

2. Definition and Scope of Practice Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D. Children and the Law Program Massachusetts General Hospital www.childforensic.com

3. The Parenting Coordinator Court-ordered neutral to assist the parties to: Reduce chronic litigation and conflict between parents Implement safe and workable parenting plan Monitor compliance with details of plan Raise parents’ skill level in communication, collaborative or parallel planning and decision making for their children Help parents to resolve parenting disputes in a timely manner Assist parents to co-parent in a way that promotes the well-being of children and safe parent-child relationships Refocus parents on the needs of their children

4. Distinct Role of Parenting Coordinator • Hybrid role: help implement, modify, mediate parenting plans • Assess impasses to co-parenting • Educate about child development, communication, conflict resolution • Manage relationship, structure of engagement, parenting plan, coordinate others (professionals, family, non-professionals) • Negotiate and Mediate disputes • Arbitrate: make decisions that are binding until the Court makes a different order

5. Role Definition • PC does not provide: • Psychotherapy • Counseling • Diagnostic or assessment services • Custody evaluations

6. When should a PC be appointed? • Ongoing disagreements between the parents about implementation of parenting plan and other child-related issues • Parties agree to decision maker outside of the Court to reduce cost and burden of continued litigation • Changing parenting plans: Young children, substance abuse issues, resistance to contact with a parent • Complex and High Risk Cases: Children with complex mental health or medical conditions, abuse/neglect allegations, multiple practitioners involved requiring coordination, symptomatic children, mental illness with treatment compliance issues • Recommendation of custody evaluator, lawyers, judge • Some states: If history of extreme or unremitting conflict that affects welfare of the children, court can appoint without parties’ agreement

7. Goals for family in PC Process • Reduce conflict • Transition from Nuclear to Binuclear family • Hold and support the children through adequate functioning within and between two new family systems • Establish and maintain effective communication system • Maintain a reliable access schedule

8. How does PC work? • Identify impasses and conflict patterns and impact on children • Establish appropriate communication rules and structures • Manage the parenting plan • Help parents disengage through structure and focus only on the children • Encourage positive parenting: warm, involved, authoritative

9. Sources of Authority for PC Practice

10. Implementation of PC role • State legislature passes law authorizing appointment • Order of state Supreme Court Chief Justice applied to entire state court circuits or counties • Order of the court which has jurisdiction over the case • Local rule • Private consent agreements Kirkland, 2007

11. Appointment • Stipulation • Court Order • Consent Agreement with PC

12. Parents must consent to give up their authority to make decisions to third parties (other than to thestatutory authority of the Court) • Informed consent necessary: Court cannot order decision-making by PC without agreement of parties • Except in Oklahoma

13. Scope of Authority • Mediator/arbitrator: If the parents are not successful in negotiating resolution of issues in a timely way, the PC may resolve the dispute. • PC decisions are legally binding but subject to judicial review. • Court retains authority to review decisions of PC; parties may bring the decisions of the PC back into Court

14. Legal authority: components of statute, order or local pattern • Define parenting coordinator • Basis of authority • Scope of authority • Qualifications • Consent vs. non-consent of parties • Confidentiality • Term of service • Removal/resignation

15. Domestic violence screening Fee arrangements Quasi-judicial immunity Grievance procedures Continuing jurisdiction Bartlett, 2005; Kirkland, 2007

16. AFCC takes the lead for interdisciplinary role • 2001 interdisciplinary Task Force on Parenting Coordination • Described manner in which jurisdictions in US have used PC • April 2003 report Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, Family Court Review, 41 • 2003 Task Force reconstituted • Review of best practices in US and Canada led to Model Standards for Parenting Coordination • May 2005 Guidelines approved by AFCC Board

17. APA Guidelines • Task Force for Development of Parenting Coordination Guidelines • Practice guidelines include statements that recommend specific professional conduct for psychologists • Created to educate and to inform practice • One year in development

18. Questions and Answers

19. STATE OF PC PRACTICE & LEGISLATION:CANADA Barbara Jo Fidler, Ph.D. , C.Psych., AccFM www.familysolutionstoronto.ca

20. ALBERTA • Alberta Family Law Act, C, F-4.5 + Arbitration Act, R.S.A 2000, c. A-43 • Family Law Practice Note 7: “court directed parental conflict intervention” • Binding recommendations; court has ultimate jurisdiction • Canadian Co-parenting Centres www.coparenting.ca • Alberta Family Mediation Society • Provide designation: Registered Parenting Coordinator and Arbitrator • Rigorous criteria for training and experience • Will have roster • Certifies education obtained, not address grievance 20

21. BRITISH COLUMBIA • www.bcparentingcoordinators.ca • Impressive initiative of legal and mental health volunteers • Training (by Joan Kelly) • Roster • No governing statute or regulatory body • Standard PC Agreement • PC (arbitration part) by consent • Case law developing • Provincial Court (Family) Rules • Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C 19986, c. 128 • Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C, 1986 • Appeal rights, judicial review rights 21

22. ONTARIO www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca No legislation in ON to order PC Contract privately Consistent with AFCC Guidelines Best practice: Order on consent Governed by Provincial and Federal Law Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, Family Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006, Family Law Act, RSO 1990 c.F.3, Divorce Act 22

23. Training Required By Ontario Law For Arbitration Component For any family arbitration Must be approved by AG (website) Screening for DV and power imbalances (at least 14 hrs, all taught in one week or less, reputable provider, lists elements) Ontario Family Law (30 hours) Ongoing training (10 hrs over any 2-yr period, half on DV or power imbalance) Suggested: Training on arbitration procedures

24. Debra K. Carter, Ph.D.The National Cooperative Parenting Centerwww.TheNCPC.com STATE OF PC PRACTICE & LEGISLATION:NORTH AMERICA

25. State of PC Practice and Legislation in North America • States which have Parenting Coordination statutes include: • Oklahoma - North Carolina • Idaho - Louisiana • Oregon - Maine • Colorado - Vermont • Texas - South Dakota Florida is the latest state to pass a parenting coordination statute (F.S. 61.125) effective October 1, 2009

26. States where Parenting Coordination is authorized through a related statute include: Arizona (Rules of Family Law Procedure 74) California Georgia Kansas (Court Rules 902) New Mexico Ohio (Rule 14.01) Minnesota (Parenting Time Expeditor) Pennsylvania (Erie County) Kentucky (Jefferson Circuit)

27. States with Non-Statutory Parenting Coordination Programs include: Florida (until 10.1.09) Kentucky Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey where there are pilot programs in four Counties. Delaware has a small pilot program British Columbia, CANADA -- uniform Parenting Coordination agreement

28. PC Characteristics Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com

29. PC Characteristics • Multidisciplinary 44% Psychologists, 11% attorneys • Experienced 18 years, 8 years PC work • 40% of practice devoted to PC work • Fees- $20-$400 Retainer - 20 hours • Term 1-3 years • Complaints 11% formal complaints Kirkland and Sullivan, FCR, 2008

30. A Collaboration with the American Psychological Association Practice Organization to Expand the Role of Parenting Coordination in the Courts Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD Assistant Executive Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs American Psychological Association Introducing The District of Columbia Superior Court’s Office of the Parenting Coordinator:

31. Office of Parenting Coordination Foundations Investigation Review of literature Psycho-education Intense Supervision and team work Consultations and team staffing Interventions: Culturally appropriate, individualized, innovative, stepped, community based

32. Model of Training • Follows the model of training of law clinics • Supervisor is designated the special master and makes all decisions • Students receive intense training • Students shadow all activities of the psychologist • Students do the leg work in cases and act as a second chair • Appropriate method of training for forensic activities as student does not function independently but learns through modeling • Use of an advisory board and a team format

33. Features of the Program • Innovative (Many currently available treatments not accessible, suitable, acceptable, cost-effective, or culturally-competent) • Culturally-appropriate (takes into account the needs and preferences related to their cultural values, i.e. individual vs. family involvement, focus on benefit to individual vs. to family group, parenting styles, solutions) • Stepped (More intense work to areas of greatest need) • Tailored (to the individual needs of each family, to readiness for change) • Community-based (Referrals and coordination with community structures that are familiar to the parties, i.e. churches, health care, child care, schools)

34. Characteristics of OPC Clients • Total of 29 cases seen by the Program • Some “non-traditional” parents (e.g., grandparents, step-parents, aunts/uncles) • About ¼ not joint custody • Diverse populations, but approximately 85% African American • Smaller percentage of parents are Caucasian, Hispanic, African, Asian, or mixed.

35. Comments from the Judges • “I don’t know how the PC has kept these disorganized and immature parents involved in the PC process! The assistance of the PC has been critical in this case, which involved threats of childnapping. The PC has brought the parents close to agreement-an amazing accomplishment” • “involvement has been successful because an August 2006 date was continued and no further dates have been set…remarkable result for this contentious matter.” • “was helpful in providing the parties a way out of the box they were in. Communication and flexibility improved” • “You helped to resolve the most difficult case in my calendar for 2006, Thank you.” (data presentation prepared by Stephen J. Lally, Ph.D., ABPP, Argosy University, Washington, DC)

36. Judge’s Satisfaction Surveys • Responding Judges “strongly agree” that: • The Parenting Coordinator helped resolve issues that made a difference for the child(ren) in this case • They would recommend a PC to another judge who has cases with this type of custody conflict • The use of a PC was helpful to this case. • The PC helped coordinate the efforts of the parties involved in the case. • All responding judges “agree” or “strongly agree” that the PC was helpful and provided useful information to the other parties involved in this case (i.e. lawyers, GALs, etc.)

37. How Can We Do That? Identify leaders, stakeholders, and interested mental health providers with relevant expertise Network: State Psychological Associations; local Bar Association; Family Court seminars Develop a work group Call Shirley Ann Higuchi: 202-336-5886

38. Special types of PC cases –appropriate or not? Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.

39. Special types of PC cases –appropriate or not • Nature of the role is conducive to or contraindicated for different types of cases • Alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR) • Longer-term involvement • Case management/coordination

40. Special populations and extended families • Young children • Designing, implementing and evolving parenting plans • Special needs children • Coordination of complex health and educational assessment and interventions • Alternative family structures • Never married, cross-generational shared custody

41. Parenting Coordination with a Mentally Ill Parent Appropriate? Ability to meaningfully participate in the process Modification of Interventions Additional procedural structures needed Debra K. Carter, Ph.D.

42. Are Domestic Violence Cases Appropriate for PC? Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D. jbkellyphd@mindspring.com

43. Parenting Coordination and Domestic Violence: Questions • Is Parenting Coordination appropriate for parents with history of DV • Assess pattern(s) of DV prior to separation/divorce and currently • If appropriate for PC, is your procedure modified? • Personal preferences, experience, and comfort level of PC important

44. Definitions of Domestic Violence • Psychological • Cursing, demeaning, yelling, taunting • Isolating, coercion, threats of harm • Stalking, harassing, inducing fear • Physical • Slapping, grabbing, shoving, twisting arm, pulling hair • Kicking, punching, biting, throwing objects • Choking, using guns & knives, mutilation, burning • Sexual • Rape, forced unwanted sexual behaviors, coercion, harassment • Financial • Controlling purchases, withholding funds and information Straus et al, 1996

45. Types of Intimate Partner Violence • Situational Couple Violence • Coercive Controlling Violence • Violent Resistance • Separation Instigated Violence Babcock et al, 2004; Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Dutton, 2005; Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Johnson, 1999; Johnson, 2005, 2006; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kelly, 2002; Kelly & Johnson, 2008; Magdol et al, 1997, 1998; Salari & Baldwin, 2002; Statistics Canada, 2001; Ver Steegh, 2005.

46. Situational Couple Violence (Conflict-Instigated Violence) • Power, coercion and control are not central dynamics • Initiated at similar rates by both sexes • 9% -12.2% (men) & 12.4%-13% (women) annual incidence rates in US and Canada • Nationally representative random samples of men and women, and community samples Babcock et al, 2004; Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Holzworth-Monroe, 2005; Jaffee et al, 2005; Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kelly & Johnson, 2008; Stets & Straus, 1992; Straus & Gelles, 1992; Ver Steegh, 2005.

47. Situational Couple Violence (2) • Conflict escalates into physical violence • Related to poor management of conflicts • Minor forms of violence most common (pushing, shoving, grabbing) • Injuries not common, generally contained • Partners not generally fearful of each other Babcock et al, 2004; Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Jaffe et al, 2005; Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Stets & Straus, 1992; Ver Steegh, 2005.

48. Situational Couple Violence (3) • Frequency and time frame vary from once only to frequent, past only to current • Generally decreases over time, & with age • More likely to stop after separation • 67% of men and 60% of women reported violence stopped after separation (Canada) Babcock et al, 2004; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell, 1993

49. Situational Couple Violence (4) • Mutual: more than half report violence perpetrated by both partners (62% men/52% women) • Female-only violence: 18% of men and 35% of women report only woman was violent • Male-only violence: 20% of men and 13% of women reported male was violent • Majority of violence did not result in injury to either men or women Kwong et al, 1999

50. Coercive-Controlling Violence(Classic Battering) • Intimidation, coercion, control, emotional abuse are central dynamics • Primarily male perpetrated (87-97%), but also female perpetrators in married, cohabiting, and lesbian relationships • Incidence of CCV in large representative samples is lower than Situational Couple Violence Jaffe et al, 2003; Johnson, 2005, 2006; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Neilson, 2004; Statistics Canada, 2001.