Critical Review of Research Evidence of Parenting Coordination's Effectiveness

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12326
• Date: 01 January 2018
• Published date: 01 January 2018

CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH EVIDENCE OF PARENTING

COORDINATION’S EFFECTIVENESS

Robin M. Deutsch, Gabriela Misca, and Chioma Ajoku

Parenting coordination (PC) has been in use since the mid-1980s, but research on its effectiveness is sorely lacking. We review

the extant research organized by three themes: (1) parenting coordinators’ perceptions of their role and function; (2) professio-

nals’ and parents’ views and perceptions of PC; and (3) outcomes of PC, including some measures of effectiveness of the PC

process. While these studies provide some insight into PC effectiveness, there is still a lack of research that uses objective out-

come measures of efficacy and that considers characteristics of the co-parent dyad, personality difficulties, or the professional

discipline of the parenting coordinator. Future research recommendations are discussed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community

While parenting coordination (PC) is perceived by professionals to be effective, the research on PC effectiveness is lim-

ited by a small number of studies of variable quality; therefore there is no robust evidence of its effectiveness in

practice.

There is a need for research on PC effectiveness that considers parent engagement, conflict level, and personalityvaria-

bles as well as professional discipline of the parenting coordinator.

While the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts and the American Psychological Association guidelines pro-

vide a model for PC practice, there is a distinct lack of theoretical underpinning of the PC practice.

It is imperative for professionals and researchers to collaborate toward the development of a unified theoretical model

to inform the PC role and practice, which in turn will allow objective assessment of its effectiveness.

Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution; Co-parenting; Divorce; High Conflict; Parenting Coordination; and

Parenting Coordinator.

INTRODUCTION

Parenting coordination is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) role, often ordered by the court

or by stipulated agreement, that combines functions of education, assessment, case management,

facilitative negotiation, conflict resolution, mediation, and decision making to help parents imple-

ment their existing parenting plan, comply with the terms of the plan, and resolve disputes in a timely

manner. The term “parenting coordination” was first used in Colorado in the early 1990s (Baris

et al., 2001). However, the role and process have been used, often under different names, such as

special master or parenting-time expeditor in the United States and Canada since the mid 1980s. The

practice emerged at the time in response to the growing family court caseloads, repeated conflicts

and ongoing litigation among high-conflict parents postdecree, and the growing evidence of the

harmful effects of high conflict on children (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2004;

Kelly, 2014).

A parenting coordinator (PC) is usually a mental health or legal professional who is court ordered

or mutually agreed upon to help the coparents reduce conflict between them, implement and monitor

a safe and workable parenting plan, decrease use of the courts for litigation to resolve their child-

related disputes in a timely manner, and improve coparenting by raising their skill level in communi-

cation, conflict resolution, and decision making. Unlike many other clinical and legal interventions,

the PC role is highly structured with distinct roles and functions as described in guidelines and,

where authorized by law, statute or rule, with a clear scope of authority and rigorous training

Correspondence: drrobindeutsch@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 56 No. 1, January 2018 119–134

V

C2018 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

requirements. However, not all jurisdictions have legal authority to appoint PCs, leaving the practice

unregulated in those areas.

In response to the increasing use of parenting coordination by mental health professionals and

lawyers, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) published Guidelines for

Parenting Coordination in 2005 and the American Psychological Association (APA) published

Guidelines for the Practice of Parenting Coordination in 2012. In the United States, more than half

of the states have statutes or court rules authorizing the appointment of a PC. While these guidelines

were developed in response to the increasing practice of parenting coordination, jurisdictions with

laws, statutes, or court rules varied in their definition of the role and scope of authority, including

whether or not decision making was a function of parenting coordination. In addition, training

requirements vary by jurisdiction, although many of the states that have authorized the use of parent-

ing coordination since 2006 have relied on the AFCC Guidelines in developing their statute or role

and their training requirements.

To our knowledge, internationally, parenting coordination is being practiced in Canada, with a

statute in British Columbia and with consent in Ontario; Sweden, since the first author conducted

training based on the AFCC Guidelines beginning in 2009 (Fieldstone, Carter, King, & McHale,

2011); Italy, with training conducted by Debra Carter in 2014 (Piccinelli, Mazzoni, & Carter, 2014);

Singapore, with training conducted in 2015 and 2017 by Debra Carter (Ng, personal communication,

September 9, 2017); and recently in Hong Kong (Sullivan, personal communication, October 30,

2014). Given the small network of PCs, paucity of published papers on parenting coordination, and

the absence of an international database, it is difficult to determine the scope of the practice in other

countries.

In 2014, the APA published a book (Higuchi & Lally, 2014) that brought together the available

knowledge around the theory and practice of parenting coordination, grounded in the APA and

AFCC practice guidelines and summarized with chapters authored by “authors who are at the

forefront of parenting coordination practice, training, publication, and research” (p. 5).

1

The book

includes foundational information about the practice of parenting coordination as well as the

available research, efficacy, and future of parenting coordination. This handbook is an effort to build

a theoretical base for the practice of parenting coordination that can be shared with new and experi-

enced PCs, with the expectation that the practice can be studied and taught in workshops, training

courses, and graduate classes of law and mental health disciplines.

While the practice of parenting coordination has grown and developed over the past two decades,

there is also a growth in published papers and empirical research on the practice itself (how it is

practiced) and its effectiveness.

This review aims to systematically assess the current state of available empirical research on

parenting coordination effectiveness. To achieve this, the review will identify, classify, critically

analyze, and synthesize the existing research on parenting coordination, formulate conclusions about

the evidence for its effectiveness, and identify gaps and areas where further research is needed.

METHOD

We performed literature searches of the Google Scholar, PsycINFO, EBSCOHOST, ProQuest,

and Web of Science databases for papers published from 2000 to 2017. The search strategy included

the terms Parenting AND Coordination, Parent Coordinator, and parent* AND coordinat*. We then

conducted further manual searches by scanning the bibliographies of the selected papers for other

relevant articles. We also performed searches on papers that cited the studies. Initial searches

retrieved relevant articles, book chapters, dissertations, and guidelines involving parenting

coordination.

Studies were included in the review sample if they: (1) reported data on PCs or parenting coordi-

nation; (2) were based on empirical data; and (3) were peer reviewed and reported in English. A qual-

ity appraisal of the studies was undertaken independently by the first two authors (with disagreem ent

120 FAMILY COURT REVIEW