DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37162.v1
title: Intimate Partner Violence and Custody Decisions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Outcomes from Family Court, Shuttle Mediation, or Videoconferencing Mediation, Washington D.C., 2017-2018
title: Version 1

description: 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.
description: The main study hypotheses focused on differences between both forms of mediation and traditional court-based litigation. The researchers hypothesized differences between cases assigned to mediation versus the return to court study condition on some outcomes measures, but on other measures, it was hypothesized that there were no statistically significant group differences. The lack of group differences is informative for the field and directly relevant to concerns about potential negative effects of mediation, relative to litigation, in cases reporting IPV. The researchers did not offer hypotheses regarding differences between shuttle and videoconferencing mediation.
description: The study was conducted at the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Multi-Door). The court serves all cases in Washington, D.C. in which parties seek a divorce or separation or to resolve parenting issues post-divorce and separation. The court's general practice is to refer cases to first attempt mediation and offer their court-annexed Multi-Door Division as a free option, although parties are free to seek mediation elsewhere. In 2017, there were 4,648 domestic relations case filings representing a wider variety of types of cases than just parental separation or divorce in the court, of which 1,086 were scheduled for, and 872 completed, family mediation at Multi-Door. All study cases, whether assigned to a mediation or the return to court condition, was assigned a judge, as the cases were initiated in court. The judges were supportive of the study. Some study cases were seen, at various points, by more than one judge; thus, the research team focused on the judge involved in the final resolution of issues. A total of 16 judges handled the final resolution of study cases, with each judge handling an average of 10.38 study cases (SD = 10.54; range 1-32). Only cases referred to Multi-Door by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia were eligible for the study, the researchers used court records as a study outcome measure. Cases referred by the court were scheduled for a mediation intake at Multi-Door. There, Dispute Resolution Specialists (DRS), not mediators, conduct intakes. Each party was independently interviewed by a DRS. Both parties had to complete an intake for a case to be study-eligible. If the case was eligible, the DRS immediately notified an onsite research project coordinator. The project coordinator would then meet, independently, with each party. The research coordinator briefly explained the study and, if a party was interested, reviewed the study informed consent. If a party consented, s/he would complete a general information form and provide contact information. Only once both parties consented was the case entered into the study. Using a computer generated list to randomization study condition assignments, the research team prepared envelopes containing random assignments. The list was maintained by the research team and regularly checked to ensure correct implementation. Once a case was entered into the study, the project coordinator would pull the next numbered and sealed envelope. Inside was the random assignment of the case to one of the three study conditions: shuttle mediation, videoconferencing mediation, or return to court. The Multi-Door staff were notified of the random assignment and they notified the parties. One year following study entry, the researchers attempted to contact all study participants to complete a follow-up interview. As cases took varying amounts of time to finish their assigned study condition, conducting these interviews one year post study entry kept the follow-up time consistent across study conditions and cases. The follow-up interview was conducted, independently with each party, via phone. Before the interview began, parties were asked to be in a place where they could answer questions independently, confidentially, and safely.
description: 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 and these responses are reflected in the MASIC dataset. The General Information forms were completed at study entry by both mediator and participant. Study participants completed a general information form when they entered the study, to gather descriptive information about the party and the case (one per party). Mediators completed a general information form, to gather information about the mediator and their relevant training and experience with mediation (one per mediator). Immediate Outcomes forms were immediately after resolution of issues. The Mediator Outcome collected information about the case at Multi-Door at the end of mediation, whether or not an agreement was reached, including number of mediation sessions, support persons present in mediation for the family, and reflections on the case by the mediator (one per case, only for mediation parties, completed by the mediator).The Immediate Outcomes Composite File combined participants' outcome forms across post non-mediation and post-mediation (includes data from both mediation and non-mediation cases). The One Year Follow Up Composite File combines datafiles across all four different follow up interviews: Mediation-Final Decision (Follow up for parties who were assigned to mediation and reached an agreement in mediation.); Mediation-No Final Decision (Follow up for parties who were assigned to mediation but did not reach agreement in mediation.); Non-Mediation-Final Decision (Follow up for parties who were assigned to the court condition and reached a final resolution of the issues in the case.); Non-Mediation-No Final Decision (Follow up for parties who were assigned to court condition but had not yet reached a final resolution of the issues in the case by the time of the follow up assessment.). Family Court Records: Researchers collected the content of the resolution reached (e.g., who was assigned custody), and the presence of re-litigation (e.g., motions, hearings, orders) in the one year following case resolution. 2A Document that resolved issues:Includes coding of allegations of IPV, conflict, legal and physical custody, visitation, summer and holiday parenting time, child exchanges, co-parenting interactions (e.g. limits on contact and communication), parent-child communication, missed parenting time, first option child care, extended parenting time,child support, transportation, restrictions and provisions on parenting time, phasing in and large changes for custody/parenting time, medical insurance, tax exemptions, debt division, asset division, counseling/therapy referrals, relocation, return to mediation, and safety arrangements (e.g. confidential addresses). Each arrangement is also coded for customization and flexibility. 3A4A Combined Count Sheet:Measures the presence or no presence (binary variables) of motions, responses, responses to responses, hearings, trials, and orders in the year following resolution of issues. Criminal/Civil/Traffic Records: Researchers gathered criminal, civil, family and traffic records for each study participant, using systems available to the court and public records. Staff coded the number and content of charges, the type of charges, each party's involvement in each charge/record/case, and whether the charge/record/case involves IPV or not.
description: Not Available
description: Response Rates: 58.6% of eligible cases consented to the study.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Mediator Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC) (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2010).
description: Cases had to meet additional study eligibility requirements. Both parties had to be parents of children in the case, current or former intimate partners, and interested in resolving child related issues. Both parents had to be comfortable speaking English, as unfortunately, most of the mediators were not bi-lingual; however, they did not have to be literate in English, as study measures could be administered in an interview. Both parties had to be 18 years of age or older. Cases were eligible if they had a Civil Protection Order (CPO) but only if the parties and judge were willing to temporarily modify the CPO only so that they could attend mediation if assigned to a mediation study condition. Cases were considered ineligible for the study for the following reasons: the parties had not had an intimate relationship with one another (e.g., a grandparent and parent); the case involved an open child abuse case; the case required emergency intervention due to immediate danger; a party lived too far from Washington, D.C. to participate in mediation in person at Multi-Door; a party was deemed incompetent for mediation (e.g., acutely psychotic); a party was incarcerated or had a pending criminal case that would interfere with mediation (e.g., murder); or the parents were in a same sex relationship (i.e., pilot work revealed that there were too few same sex cases to appropriately statistically analyze these cases).
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Family Court Records 2A Data DS2: Family Court Records Combined 3A and 4A Data DS3: Civil Charges Data DS4: Criminal Charges Data DS5: IPV Current Family Charges Data DS6: IPV Other Partner or Other Family Charges Data DS7: Non-IPV Current Family Charges Data DS8: Non-IPV Other Partner or Other Family Charges Data DS9: Traffic Charges Data DS10: General Information Mediator Background Data DS11: General Information Participant Data DS12: Immediate Outcome Court-Only Data DS13: Immediate Outcome Composite Data DS14: Immediate Outcome Mediator Data DS15: One-Year Follow-Up Composite Data DS16: Mediator Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC) Data
description: Divorcing and separating parents with court cases referred for mediation to the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court of Washington D.C. Smallest Geographic Unit: City
description: record abstracts; mail questionnaire; on-site questionnaire; telephone interview