Does Level of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Predict the Content of Family Mediation Agreements?

• Author: Amy Holtzworth‐Munroe,Fernanda S. Rossi,Amy G. Applegate
• Date: 01 January 2015
• Published date: 01 January 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12135

DOES LEVEL OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

PREDICT THE CONTENT OF FAMILY MEDIATION AGREEMENTS?

Fernanda S. Rossi, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, and Amy G. Applegate*

This study investigated whether reported levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or abuse (IPV/A) victimization are

related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family- and child-related

issues. Whether or not parties reached agreement was analyzed for 105 cases at a law school mediation clinic. Agreement

content was coded for the 71 cases that reached agreement. Levels of IPV and IPV/A weredeter mined separatelyfor males and

females, using a standardized measure. Regression models were utilized to examine reports of IPV or IPV/A as predictors.

Results indicated that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns;

levels of partner violence/abuse predicted numerous issues in mediation agreements, including arrangements regarding

legal custody,parenting time, holidays, child exchanges, interparental communication, safety restrictions, counseling referrals,

child support, financial arrangements, and other miscellaneous topics (e.g., relocation). However,some findings were consistent

with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A; for example, increasing levels of

male-perpetrated IPV/A predicted increased likelihood of making an agreement to share legal custody. Further research is

needed to resolve the longstanding debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demon-

strating IPV/A.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

• This study adds to the debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating

IPV/A.

• It examines whether reported levelsof IPV and IPV/A victimization are related to reaching ag reement and to the content

of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family- and child-related issues.

• Results provide some evidence that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a

variety of concerns.

• However,some findings are consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties repor ting IPV and

IPV/A.

• Findings have implications for the practice of family mediation with parties reporting a history of IPV or IPV/A.

Keywords: Divorce Mediation;Divorce;DomesticViolence;Family Mediation;Intimate Partner Violence;MASIC;Media-

tion Agreement;and RBRS.

INTRODUCTION

Increased rates of relationship instability (Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra, 2010) have resulted in a

demand for relationship dissolution services, and one alternative dispute resolution method, family

mediation, has become widespread (Milne, Folberg, & Salem, 2004). The question of whether

mediation is appropriate for separating parties with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) and

abuse (IPA) is controversial (Holtzworth-Munroe, 2011; Ver Steegh & Dalton, 2008) and important,

as a significant number (33% to 98%) of mediation cases report intimate partner violence and abuse

(IPV/A; Beck, Menke, O’Hara Brewster, & Figueredo, 2009; Tishler, Bartholomae, Katz, &

Landry-Meyer, 2004).1Concerns regarding the participation of IPV/A victims in mediation include a

risk for physical harm if the process or agreement reached angers the perpetrator (Beck & Sales, 2000;

Campbell et al., 2003) and the possibility of unequal participation in decision-making as a result of an

imbalance in power between parties. Violent perpetrators may be controlling and may intimidate

victims into agreements that inadequately address their needs or interests (Fischer, Vidmar, & Ellis,

1993; Tishler et al., 2004) or provide necessary safety protections (Beck, Walsh, & Weston, 2009;

Correspondence: holtzwor@indiana.edu, fsrossi@indiana.edu, aga@indiana.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 53 No. 1, January 2015 134–161

© 2015 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts

Tishler et al., 2004). In contrast, other mediation experts emphasize that excluding parents endorsing

IPV/A may prevent them from experiencing the benefits related to this process. For example, par ties

may wish to have a voice in the process, and agreements may be tailored to include provisions that

maintain the safety and needs of victims and their children for those capable of representing their

interests (Edwards, Baron, & Ferrick, 2008). Furthermore, relative to litigation, mediation may reduce

conflict between parties (Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, Sbar ra, & Dillon, 2001), although this

has never been directly tested for families with a history of IPV/A.

IPV/A AND AGREEMENT RATES

A limited number of studies have investigated whether the presence of IPV/A influences the

likelihood of parties reaching agreement in mediation. Two studies by Wissler (1999a, 1999b)

examined 789 cases from Maine and 154 cases from Ohio. Wissler concluded that settlement of issues

in mediation was not affected by the presence, frequency, or recency of relationship violence (1999a),

and there were no differences in agreement rates of parties with or without a history of IPV, even when

a mediating party expressed fears or concerns prior to mediation about the other party’s perpetration

of violence (1999b). Tishler et al. (2004), studying 304 couples mandated to mediation in Ohio, found

that 34% of couples who did not report relationship violence reached agreement compared to 22% of

couples reporting violence, but this difference was not statistically significant. In contrast with these

earlier studies, among 241 cases seeking mediation at an Indiana University clinic, Ballard,

Holtzworth-Munroe, Applegate, and D’Onofrio (2011) demonstrated that the likelihood of reaching

full agreement was significantly lower in cases with evidence of intimate partner violence (45.3%)

than in cases with no evidence of IPV (69.7%). All of these studies were significantly limited in their

method of IPV/A assessment, as validated and detailed measures were not used. In contrast, Beck,

Walshet al. (2009) utilized a standardized and behaviorally-specific measure of intimate partner abuse

in a sample of 864 couples court-mandated to mediation in Arizona. Based on either wives’ or

husbands’ reports, the average IPA score for parties who did not reach agreement was higher than that

of cases who did reach full agreement. Thus, the previous research findings are mixed.

The current study contributes to the research by examining the likelihood that parties will reach a

mediation agreement depending on the level of partner violence and abuse. Similar to Beck, Walsh

et al. (2009), we used standardized and behaviorally-specific IPV/A screens and examined indepen-

dent self-reports of IPV/A for males and females. Given the mixed previous findings, we tentatively

hypothesized that males and females reporting greater levels of IPV/A will be less likely to reach

agreement in mediation.

IPV/A AND MEDIATION AGREEMENT CONTENT

Beyond whether or not parties reach agreement, most who have raised concerns about offering

mediation to cases with a history of violence and abuse have focused on the content of the agreements,

such as whether or not victims of IPV/A are able to make agreements that adequately protect the safety

of themselves and their children. While few studies have examined the agreement content of couples

screened for IPV/A, the existing findings suggest that there are few, if any, consistent differences in

the content of agreements of families who report IPV/A and those who do not.

Mathis and Tanner (1998) examined the mediation agreements of 149 couples from a Texas

metropolitan court services program. Compared to couples who did not report violence, cases with a

history of IPV more frequently awarded sole custody to the mother (40% of couples reporting

violence; 33% of couples not reporting violence) and were more likely to agree to arrangements that

restricted visitation privileges of the nonresidential parent (17% of couples reporting violence; 3% of

couples not reporting violence). However, the authors expressed concern that over half (57%) of

couples reporting violence agreed on some form of shared physical custody or split physical custody

with equal residence, as such agreements may increase contact between parties and may suggest an

inability of the victim to voice concerns relating to safety during mediation (Mathis & Tanner,1998).

Rossi et al./MEDIATION AGREEMENTSAND IPV/A 135