Search results

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

The major aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that legal representation of the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victim in child custody decisions leads to greater legal protections being awarded in these decisions compared to similar cases of unrepresented IPV victims. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among King County couples with minor children filing for marriage dissolution in King County, Washington between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who had a history of police or court documented intimate partner violence (IPV). The study examined the separate effects of private legal representation and legal aid representation relative to propensity score-matched, unrepresented comparison subjects. Primary study outcomes were measured at the time the first "Final Parenting Plan" was awarded. Researchers also examined the two-year period post-decree among the subset of cases with filing between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 for post-decree court proceedings indicative of continued child custody or visitation disputes.

Among divorcing and separating parents referred by family courts to mediation to resolve issues, over half report intimate partner violence (IPV). Whether family mediation can be safely offered to cases with a history of IPV is a major controversy that has not been examined previously with empirically sound research. This study was a randomized controlled trial, the "gold standard" for assessing interventions, of family mediation cases with levels of IPV that would, historically, be considered inappropriate for mediation at our study site, a court-attached mediation center in Washington, D.C. Study cases were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions: traditional court-based litigation (n=67), shuttle mediation (n=49), or videoconferencing mediation (n=50).

Researchers conducted a randomized control trial to compare immediate and one year outcomes for three dispute resolution processes (i.e., traditional court-based litigation, shuttle mediation, and videoconferencing mediation) among family law cases seeking to resolve parenting related issues and self-reporting a level of IPV history that would typically prohibit joint mediation as an option at the court-annexed mediation program where the study was conducted.

The mediation intake interview included an IPV screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC; Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, and Applegate, 2010). There is initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC (Pokman et al., 2014) and research demonstrating that the MASIC leads to higher levels of detection of IPV among parents seeking mediation than other methods of IPV screening (Rossi, et al., 2015). The MASIC is a behaviorally specific measure, listing a series of abusive behaviors on subscales (e.g., psychological abuse, coercive control, physical violence, sexual violence, stalking) and consequences of abuse (e.g., fear of the partner, injury). Each item is assessed for occurrence twice-- ever in the relationship and in the past year. The questions ask the party about their victimization from the other party.

Based on party responses to the Multi-Door intake interview, including the MASIC, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the level of IPV reported by either or both parties was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. No specific level of IPV for study eligibility was set, for two reasons. First, no previous empirical data are available to guide decisions regarding what level of IPV would make joint mediation inappropriate. Second, the DRSs were well trained and experienced and wanted to retain the right to use their clinical judgment. However, the Multi-Door staff and research team agreed that DRSs would pay particular attention to level and types of IPV, presence of risk factors empirically related to lethality (e.g., weapons), whether IPV was escalating in frequency or severity, IPV-related injuries, and whether a party was fearful of the other party or expressed IPV-related concerns about participating in mediation.

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.

This study was a secondary analysis of Custody Evaluators' Beliefs about Domestic Abuse Allegations, 2009-2010 [United States] (ICPSR 30962 - https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30962.v1). The purpose of this study was to conduct further analysis of a recent, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored national survey of professionals to better understand the relationship between family law statutes and professionals' recommendations for child custody and visitation in cases of intimate partner violence. The samples involve 512 child custody evaluators and 200 judges from 46 states. Evaluators and judges responded to a case vignette of serious intimate partner violence (IPV). They indicated recommendations they would make for custody and visitation and the perceived risk of future harm. Evaluators also reported on their history of actual recommendations in IPV cases. The original study investigated beliefs about custody, value-laden beliefs, knowledge professionals had acquired on IPV, the number of survivors they had known, and their work setting, education, and other demographics. In the current study, statutory provisions with sufficient sample sizes of professionals with and without the provisions were used in the analysis.