Child Informed Mediation Study (CIMS): Incorporating the children's perspective into divorce mediation in an American pilot study
Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America
Amy Applegate
Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America
Brian D'Onofrio
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America
John Bates
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States of America
PP: 116 - 129
Abstract
Children experiencing parental separation may benefit from forms of mediation that systematically help parents consider the needs and best interests of their children. Child Focused (CF) and Child Inclusive (CI) mediation approaches were designed to meet this need and thus may offer effective means to improve the impact of mediation on families.
An initial study in Australia provided evidence of the positive effects of CF and CI and favored CI over CF (McIntosh et al., 2008). We designed the Child Informed Mediation Study (CIMS) to further test CF and CI mediation. The CIMS is being conducted in a different location (the United States), uses random assignment of cases to type of mediation, and compares both CF and CI to divorce mediation as usual (MAU).
For methodological and practical reasons, CIMS differs from the McIntosh et al. study in other ways (eg, using student mediators and child consultants; including a child consultant and mediator in both CF and CI). A pilot CIMS study is currently underway. No data are yet available, but we present some initial impressions regarding how the study is proceeding, problems encountered, and lessons learned.
Keywords
child inclusive mediation; child focused mediation; children's interests; divorce mediation; child inclusive (CI); family law; student mediators and child consultants; interdisciplinary training; intervention efficacy study; empirically supported inventions; empirically validated interventions
References
Amato PR (2000) The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 1269-1287.
Beck CJA, Sales BD and Emery RE (2004) Research on the impact of mediation. In J Folberg, L Milne and P Salem (Eds) Divorce and family mediation (pp.447-482). New York: Guilford.
Casper LM and Bianchi SM (2002) Continuity and change in the American family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Emery RE, Sbarra D and Grover T (2005) Divorce mediation: Research and reflections. Family Court Review 43, 22-37.
Grimes A and McIntosh J (2004) Emerging practice issues in child inclusive divorce mediation. Journal of Family Studies 10(1), 113-120. http://jfs.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/10/issue/1/article/79/emerging-practice-issues-in-childinclusive
Holtzworth-Munroe A., Applegate AG and D'Onofrio BD (2009) Family dispute resolution: Charting a course for the future. Family Court Review (special issue) 47, 493-505.
Kelly JB and Emery RE (2003) Children's adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations 52, 352-362.
Laumann-Billings L and Emery RE (2000) Distress among young adults from divorced families. Journal of Family Psychology 14, 671-687.
Manning WD, Smock PJ and Majumdar D (2004) The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children. Population Research and Policy Review 23, 135-159.
McIntosh J (2007) Child inclusion as a principle and as evidence-based practice: Applications to family law services and related sectors. Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse Issues, 1-23.
McIntosh J and Moloney L (2006) Creating child focused dialogues with separated parents. Theoretical and clinical underpinnings of child focused dispute resolution. Canberra: Australian Government Attorney General's Department.
McIntosh JE, Wells YD, Smyth BM and Long CM (2008). Child-focuses and child-inclusive divorce mediation: Comparative outcomes from a prospective study of post-separation adjustment. Family Court Review 46, 105-124.
Moloney L and McIntosh J (2004) Child-responsive practices in Australian Family Law: Past problems and future directions, Journal of Family Studies 10(1), 71-86. http://jfs.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/10/issue/1/article/76/childresponsive-practices-in-australian-family
Schepard AI (2004) Children, courts, and custody. New York: Cambridge University Press.
US Census Bureau (2002) Current Population Report, pp.20-547, Table C3.
eContent Home
