ChildrenBeyondDispute

AProspective Studyof OutcomesfromChildFocusedand

Child Inclusive Post-SeparationFamily Dispute Resolution

FinalReport

JenniferE.McIntoshand CarolineM.Long

October2006

ExecutiveSummary

Studysynopsis

Thisstudywasfundedbythe AustralianGovernmentAttorney-General’sDepartment,and conductedthroughacollaborationbetweenFamilyTransitions,Relationships Australiaand LaTrobeUniversity.

The study compared outcomes over one year for twogroupsof separatedparents,who attendedmediationoverparentingdisputes. TheseparentsengagedeitherinaChildFocused intervention,orin aChildInclusiveintervention, atone ofthreeRelationships Australia services(Canberra,MelbourneandAdelaide).

Twohundredandseventy-fiveparentstookpartinthestudy(142families). Theyreportedon

364children,and193ofthosechildren,aged5to16years,alsoparticipateddirectlyin the research. No significantdifferenceswerefound betweenthe twotreatmentgroupson demographicvariables. Agoodretentionrateof75%overtheyearoccurredforchildren,and

83%forparents.

The ChildFocused intervention prioritisedthepsychological andrelational elements of parents’separation,andthemakingof parentingarrangementsthatwouldbestsupportthe developmentalneedsof thechildren. Theirchildrenwerenotseenforthe purposesof the mediation. Theaveragelengthoftimespentwithbothparentsinthisintervention,including intake,was5.1hours.

TheChildInclusiveintervention sharedthesameintentandapproach,butalsoinvolveda briefdirectassessmentofchildren’sexperiencesoftheseparationandoftheirrelationships with eachparent. Thechildren’s material was carefully formulated and considered with

parents,andcorethemesincorporatedintotheirnegotiations. Theaveragedurationof this interventionwithparents,includingintakeandfeedbackofthechildren’smaterial,was6.2 hours,plusaseparate1.5hourswithchildren.

Extensiverepeatedmeasuresdatawerecollectedfromparentsandchildrenpriorto mediation commencing,andthenagainthreeandtwelvemonthsaftertheconclusionofmediation.

Outcomescommontobothgroups

Entry intomediationwasapoint ofhigh riskforboth groupsoffamilies. Bothparents reportedhightoveryhighcurrentacrimonywiththeirformerorsoon-to-be-former partner andalowrateofresolutionofdisputes. Theirchildrenreportedstillhigherratesofconflict betweenparents. Ofconcern,onethirdofchildrenaged5to16wereintheclinicalrangeof psychologicalsymptomsatthetimeofintake,onparentreport.

Significantandenduringreductioninlevelsofconflictoccurredforbothgroupsintheyear sincemediation. Themajorityofparentsreportedimprovedmanagementorresolutionofthe initial disputesthathadbroughtthemto mediation. Across allages,children inboth interventionsperceivedlessfrequentand intenseconflictbetweentheir parentsand better resolutionof it,witha significantloweringof theirowndistressin relationto parental discord.

OutcomesuniquetotheChildInclusiveintervention

Noisolated effectswereevident fortheChild Focusedinterventionateitherthethreeor twelvemonthfollowuppoints. Incontrast,theChildInclusiveinterventionwasassociated with a numberofeffectsnotevidentin the othertreatmentgroup. These effects were strongestforfathersandforchildren.

Oneyearpostintervention,repeatedmeasuresanalysesshowedsignificantlybetteroutcomes fortheChildInclusivegroupinthefollowingareas:

•Loweracrimonyinfathersinrelationtotheirformerspouses;

•Greaterimprovementintheparentalallianceforfathers;

•Children’sexperience ofimproved emotional availability oftheirfathersandgreater senseofclosenesstohim;

•Greater contentment by children with care and contact arrangements, and less inclinationtowanttochangethem;

•Greater satisfaction offathers with careandcontact arrangements oftheirchildren, despiteinitiallylowerlevelsofovernightcontactthantheChildFocusedfathers;

•Greaterstabilityofcareandcontactpatternsovertheyear;

•Preservationorimprovementofthemother-childrelationship,fromtheperspectivesof bothmotherandchild.

Durabilityofagreementsandlitigationpatterns

AgreementsreachedintheChildInclusiveinterventionweresignificantlymoredurableand workableoverayear,asratedbymothersandfathers. Of thosecaseswithnopriorCourt involvement, Child Inclusive parents were half aslikely toinstigatenewlitigation over parentingmattersintheyearaftermediationthanweretheChildFocusedparents.

Consideringthedifferenceinoutcomes

ThreeuniquechangemechanismswereidentifiedforChildInclusiveparentsandchildren:

1. Thewake-upcall. Theimmediacyand intimacyofmaterial created by the child consultationprocessmeantthatparentswerefrequently“moved”inalasting way bythe feedbacktheyheardfromandabouttheirownchildren. The“wakeupcall”totheseparents, toaltertheirbehavioursaroundtheirchildrenandtheirattitudesabouttheirpreviouspartner, wasdirect,compellingandimpactful. Althoughbothinterventionsactivelyfocusedparents ontheirchildren’sresponsestotheirconflictandtheirneedsinpost-separationre-structureof thefamily,discussionaboutchildrenandparentalcooperationwasnecessarilygenericinthe ChildFocusedintervention,becausethe children’sdirectexperienceswerenotobtainedfor mediation purposes. In this light,thepowerofparentalprojections and inaccurate assumptionsabouttheirchildrenandabouttheirrelationship witheachparent,hadgreater license tocontinueunchecked through the Child Focused intervention,and resulting arrangementsinthatgroupcouldbetailored,atbest,towhatparents“believed”theirchildren needed.

2. Alevel playingfield forfathers. The perceived“fairness” oftheChildInclusive intervention wasnotableforfathers. Through thefather’seyes,thisinterventionoften functionedtoremovethemotherfromthepsychologicalroleof“gatekeeper” ofthe informationabouttheirchildren. Assuch,innegotiationsaroundhischildren’sneeds,this createdtheexperienceofamorelevelplayingfieldfortheChildInclusivefatherthanforthe ChildFocused father. TheChildInclusive fathers andmothers appearedabletolistento viewsthatsometimesdidnotsupporttheirownargument,whentheseviewscamefromtheir childrenandwereconveyedempathicallybyanindependentspecialist. Fathersinparticular describedthefeedbacksessionabouttheirchildrenasvaluedandtransformative.

3. Developmentally correctarrangements. Through asharpenedfocus on each oftheir children’semotionalandstagespecificneedsinthe ChildInclusivetreatment,parents’ agreementstendedtofavourstabilityof residence,andimprovedattachmentrelationships. Fathers intheChild Focusedtreatmentinitiallyobtainedsignificantlyhigherratesof

overnightcontact,whichwerethensubsequentlyreducedoverthecourse of the year,often throughlitigation. FathersintheChildInclusiveinterventiontendedtoagreetomaintenance ofovernight contactrates,ratherthandriving for their“equalshare”. Ofinterest isthe findingthatthesefatherswerealsosubstantiallymorecontentwiththe careandcontact arrangements thanfathers intheChild Focused group,and thatthey reportedcloser relationshipswiththeirchildren. Thefindingssuggestthatthe ChildInclusiveintervention assisted parentstocreate“developmentally correct” agreements, tailored tothecore experiencesoftheirchildren,andmadeiteasiertoresistarrangementstailoredtoanysenseof adultentitlement.

Children’smentalhealthoutcomes

Children’soverallmentalhealthtendedtoimproveovertheyearafterintervention,although

21% ofchildren remainedin the clinical range,in contrasttoabout15%inthegeneral population. Thecombinationoffactorsthatbestaccountedforchildren’spoormentalhealth outcomesovertheyearweretheirfather’sloweducation,highparentalconflict,sharedcare andtheexperienceofpooremotionalavailabilityintheirmother. Thefindingssuggestthat thechildrenwhoseemotionalhealthsufferedmostwerethoseforwhomsharedcareposeda developmentalrisk;namelyyoungerchildrenwhoseparentsremainedinhighconflict,with poorcooperationandregardforeachother,andwhereapoorrelationshipbetweenmother andchildwasmutuallyreported.

Characteristicsofpoorprogress

Bothtreatmentshadlesssuccesswithlong-termhighconflictcases,andparentswithserious mentalhealthissues. Findingssupportacarefulscreeningoftheentrenchedandhighconflict spectrum,aimingto divertparentsinextremeconflictinto tailored,longer-termtherapeutic interventions withthefamily. Thedatasuggestastrongneedforclosescreening of personality and prodromalmentalhealth symptomsatintake. Findings overallsupport inclusioncriteriaforbothinterventionsthatarecapacitybased,i.e.basedaroundtheabilityof aparenttousefullyparticipateandconsideralternateandattimesego-dystonicinformation, ratherthanadheringtocriteriabasedonthepresenceorabsenceofspecificissues.

ImplicationsfortargetingtheChildInclusiveintervention

TheChildInclusiveinterventionshowedadifferentialcapacitytobringaboutmoredurable andworkableagreementswithparentspresentingwithlowalliances,orpoormutualregard

and cooperation,thandidtheChildFocusedintervention. Parents presenting with undamagedoradequatealliancesreportedsimilarlevelsofprogressacrossthetwogroups.

Conclusion

While boththeChildFocusedand ChildInclusivedisputeresolutioninterventionsled to reductioninparentalconflict,findingsofthisstudysuggestanenduringlevelofrelationship repairuniquetotheChildInclusiveapproach.

Significant changesin the qualityof dyadicrelationshipswere evidentacrosstheyear, betweenformerpartners,andbetweeneachparentandtheirchild/ren. Fromthe children’s perspective, theChildInclusiveinterventionwasassociated with closerrelationships with theirfathers,andmoreemotionallyavailablecarefromtheirmothers. Inthislight,thedata pointtothepotentialoftheChildInclusiveinterventiontotargetthecrucialpublichealth issue ofchildren’s emotional well-being post-separation, through a consequenteffect of improvedparentalrelationships.

Thedataalsopointtotheimportanceofthedevelopmentalandrelationshipcontextaround careandcontactarrangements. Inkeepingwithotherfindingsinthisstudy,thedatasuggest thatsubstantiallysharedcareisanarrangementbestdeterminedbythecapacityofparentsto exercisematurity,tocooperateandtoembracethedevelopmentalneedsoftheirchildren,and toprovideeachchildwithemotionallyavailableparentinginaclimateoflowconflict.

Inall,thisresearchprovidesevidencetosupportthefurtherdevelopmentandapplicationof ChildInclusive,therapeuticallyorientedmediation. Thismethodofferedseparatedfamiliesa significantlevelofrepairtotheparentalrelationship,andtochildren’ssenseoftheirparents’ availability,andproduceddevelopmentallysensitiveagreements,withwhichparentsand childrenremainedmorecontent,overtheyearsincemediation.

It is important to note, however, that the findings of this study cannot be generalised to other models of Child Inclusive mediation, and careful guidelines around training and practice competency are necessary to ensure the ongoing fidelity of this intervention.