Mandatory Custody Mediation in San Diego, California, 1996 (ICPSR 20365)

Published: May 27, 2010

Principal Investigator(s):
Dennis P. Saccuzzo, San Diego State University; Nancy E. Johnson, San Diego State University; Wendy J. Koen, San Diego State University

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20365.v1

Version V1

The purpose of the study was to provide empirical data to inform the debate and lead to meaningful answers to questions in custody mediation and domestic violence including equity of outcomes for families with partner violence versus those without any evidence of violence, and the issue of health and safety outcomes for the children. Researchers examined every seventh action filed in the Family Court in San Diego during the calendar year 1996. Each of the 512 nonagreement mediation reports and its associated Court Screening Form were scanned in its entirety and subsequently printed. Each report also contained an appended page, containing a detailed parenting plan in which the mediator summarized the percentage of physical custody recommended for each parent. Each report was studied and content analyzed by three trained raters who had no access to the Court Screening Form and so were blind to any a prior domestic violence allegations. The majority of coding items called for yes/no responses. Other coding items allowed the raters to choose from among more than two options. A variable was coded in a particular direction if all three raters agreed or if two of the three raters agreed. The domestic violence sample (n = 200) included all of the selected cases with domestic violence indicators on the current screening form, prior allegation of domestic violence on a court screening form and/or a permanent domestic violence restraining order in the case file that was available to the mediator, and clear cases of domestic violence as documented by the mediator in which there was absolutely no indication of domestic violence on any screening form or in the case file. The nondomestic violence sample (n = 200) included 200 of the remaining 312 cases that had no indicators of domestic violence in the file and no mention of domestic violence in the mediation report. The data includes five categories of variables: general case information, parental factors, child factors, family interaction factors, and current parental relationship.

Saccuzzo, Dennis P., Johnson, Nancy E., and Koen, Wendy J. Mandatory Custody Mediation in San Diego, California, 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-05-27. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20365.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (1999-WT-VW-0015)

none

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

1996

1999 -- 2000 (Fall)

The purpose of the study was to provide empirical data to inform the debate and lead to meaningful answers to important questions in custody mediation and domestic violence including equity of outcomes for families with partner violence versus those without any evidence of violence, and the issue of health and safety outcomes for the children.

In order to examine custody mediation and domestic violence, researchers examined every seventh action filed in the Family Court in San Diego during the calendar year 1996. Researchers eliminated cases in which the parties resolved the dispute either before or during mediation. All remaining cases were those in which there was a mediation that failed to resolve the dispute, either in full or in part. Each of these 512 mediations resulted in a formal report with custody recommendations by the mediator. Each nonagreement mediation report and its associated Court Screening Form were scanned in its entirety and subsequently printed. Mediation reports ranged from 2 to 11 pages in length, and in general, contained 2 sections. In one section, the mediator made detailed recommendations about custody and visitation. In the other section, the mediator wrote a narrative describing the mediation process and the rationale for any recommendations given. Each report also contained an appended page containing a detailed parenting plan in which the mediator summarized the percentage of physical custody recommended for each parent. A content analysis system was developed to systematically capture the information in the mediator's report. Each report was studied and content analyzed by three trained raters who had no access to the Court Screening Form and so were blind to any a prior domestic violence allegations. The majority of coding items called for yes/no responses. Other coding items allowed the raters to choose from among more than two options. A variable was coded in a particular direction if all three raters agreed or if two of the three raters agreed. In only rare instances was there no consistency among the three raters. In those instances, the investigators independently evaluated the reports, so that each final data point was based on full agreement by at least two people. The domestic violence sample (n = 200) contained mediations in which there were indications of domestic violence in the case file available to the mediator or the mediator identified domestic violence. The nondomestic violence sample (n = 200) contained cases with no indicators of domestic violence in the file and no mention of domestic violence in the mediation report.

The study had two randomly selected samples. The starting point for the study sample was every single action filed in the Family Court in San Diego during the calendar year 1996. Every seventh filing was examined. If there was a custody dispute in that filing, it was selected for further study. If there was no custody dispute, the researchers examined each subsequent filing sequentially and selected the first custody dispute that could be identified. From the resultant 948 files, researchers eliminated cases in which the parties resolved the dispute either before or during mediation. All remaining cases were those in which there was a mediation that failed to resolve the dispute, either in full or in part. Each of these 512 mediations resulted in a formal report with custody recommendations by the mediator. The domestic violence sample (n = 200) included all of the selected cases with domestic violence indicators on the current screening form, prior allegation of domestic violence on a court screening form and/or a permanent domestic violence restraining order in the case file that was available to the mediator, and clear cases of domestic violence as documented by the mediator in which there was absolutely no indication of domestic violence on any screening form or in the case file. The nondomestic violence sample (n = 200) included 200 of the remaining 312 cases that had no indicators of domestic violence in the file and no mention of domestic violence in the mediation report. A random number generator was used to eliminate nondomestic violence cases until researchers were left with a sample size of 200 cases.

Every action filed in the Family Court in San Diego during the calendar year 1996.

Family Court filing

The data are record abstracts collected from actions filed in the Family Court in San Diego during the calendar year 1996.

administrative records data

The data include variables from five categories, including general case information, parental factors, child factors, family interaction factors, and current parental relationship. Case information variables include previous mediation, legainclue l and physical custody recommendations, and types of visitation. Parental factors include mother's living arrangements, occupation, and work schedule, father's living arrangements, occupation, and work schedule, parental concern for child's well-being, current involvement with child, parental physical appearance, body language, emotional factors, hostility, and willingness to compromise, and drug and alcohol use. Child factor variables include child's living arrangements, day care plan, separation from primary caregiver, child's regressive behaviors, age, gender, and past occurances of child abuse. Family interaction factors include domestic violence mentioned, child exchange difficulties, and extended family involvement. Current parental relationship variables include parent's current relationships, parental hostility, parent/child interaction, allegations regarding safety concerns, legal concerns or threats, and challenges to current visitations.

Not applicable.

Likert-type scales were used.

2010-05-27

2010-05-27

2010-05-27 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Standardized missing values.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Notes

  • These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

  • The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented.
NACJD logo

This dataset is maintained and distributed by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), the criminal justice archive within ICPSR. NACJD is primarily sponsored by three agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.