Duel or Dual: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Parenting Coordination for Uber‐Conflicted Parenting Relationships

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12284
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Author: William RJP Brown,Lauren Behrman,Jeffrey Zimmerman
• Date: 01 July 2017

DUEL OR DUAL: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO

PARENTING COORDINATION FOR UBER-CONFLICTED PARENTING

RELATIONSHIPS

William RJP Brown, Lauren Behrman, and Jeffrey Zimmerman

Parenting coordination for families struggling with severe conflict can be challenging for both the family and the parenting

coordinator (PC). These families can put an inordinate strain on the PC as they lobby their positions and try to bias the PC

against the other parent. The interdisciplinary dual-PC model is an innovative approach using aspects of the collaborative prac-

tice model to enhance the efficacy of the process while utilizing the strengths of both disciplines. Through a case illustration,

the identification of the family dynamics and situations that give rise to use of this approach shall become clear. This article

also demonstrates the potential benefits to both the family and the PCs. All aspects synthesize into a cohesive, well-balanced

approach to the uber-conflicted parenting relationships.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

We provide information that can assist in identifying whether a single-PC or a dual-PC approach (either unidisciplinary

or interdisciplinary) is most appropriate for a particular family situation.

PCs will be able to identify the protocols for an interdisciplinary PC team as a potential model to add to their practice.

We address the practical, financial, and ethical issues and obligations associated with implementing this model of

intervention.

Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); Dual-PC Model; High-Conflict Families; Interdisciplinary ADR; and

Parenting Coordinators (PC).

OVERVIEW OF PARENTING COORDINATION

An old proverb states: “Necessity is the mother of invention.” The necessity for an intervention

that could address the frequent flyers that were involved in revolving-door postjudgment litigation

over relatively minor parenting decisions became clear in the early 1990s (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes,

Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2004). These families were unable to make decisions about issues such as vaca-

tion planning, telephone access, routine scheduling, schedule changes, and extracurricular activities.

To reach closure on these issues, they would use a disproportionate amount of the court’s time and

resources (Beck & Sales, 2001; Henry, Fieldstone, & Bohac, 2009; Mitcham-Smith & Henry, 2007).

These cases represented a drain on the resources of the courts and were costly to parents as well.

Coates et al. (2004, p. 246) described the need for “intensive case management for chronically con-

flicted child custody situations.” The role of a parenting coordinator (PC) to address specific areas of

parental disagreement evolved from this awareness (Beck, Putterman, Sbarra, & Mehl, 2008; Coates

et al., 2004; Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008).

Since that time, many states have accepted the role of PC (Coates et al., 2004; Beck et al., 2008;

Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008). The courts began to delegate some limited decision making authority to

specially trained attorneys and mental health professionals to help postdivorce parents implement

their parenting plans and resolve these issues quickly in a nonadversarial manner outside of court

(Greenberg, 2010; Parks, Tindall, & Yingling, 2011). Although the number of states with parenting

coordination statutes is limited, it has been an accepted practice in many jurisdictions by agreement

of the parents (Montiel, 2015). Concurrently, the American Psychological Association (2012) and

Correspondence: wbrown@williamrjpbrown.com; laurenbehrman@gmail.com; drz@jzphd.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 3, July 2017 345–361

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2006) have issued guidelines for the best practi-

ces of parenting coordination.

Entered into by either stipulation or court order, parenting coordination often helps families

resolve parenting issues in a timely fashion without having to use the resources of the court (Henry

et al., 2009). Many of these parental decisions in polarized, high-conflict relationships can get

hijacked by one or both parents who refuse to commit to any one option for problem solving, often

leading to renewed or continued litigation. In some cases, the PC has limited tie-breaking or decision

making authority that is granted either by stipulation, by statute, or by court order. The PC is also

able to provide a multitude of services, including parent education, support, and case management,

in addition to helping parents resolve minor conflicts related to scheduling or other disagreements

(Henry et al., 2009). Parenting coordination is generally used as a postdivorce intervention, but has

also been used with families in the midst of divorce litigation.

It has been noted that there is a paucity of research studying the effects of parenting coordination

programs (Henry et al., 2009). Brewster, Beck, Anderson, and Benjamin (2011) reported a study to

test their effectiveness using a novel methodology. Their results indicated that there was a reduction

in motions filed, documents processed by court personnel, judicial hearings, and judges’ orders to

modify agreements when PCs were employed in the sample they studied. Additionally, two survey-

based research reports are of note. While assessing the statute-based parenting coordination programs

in the 11

th

Judicial Circuit of Florida, Fieldstone, Lee, Baker, and McHale (2012) reported positive

feedback of overall efficacy from the perspective of judges, attorneys, and PCs in reducing parental

conflict and increasing parental communication. Utilizing a national survey of PCs (PC Network of

the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts), Belcher-Timme, Shorey, Belcher-Timme, and

Gibbings (2013) reported that the findings and recommendations

have implications for parenting coordination training and point to an interdisciplinary and collaborative

model for parenting coordination in general. It seems apparent that both legal and mental professionals

report similar effectiveness in specific interventions, yet standard educational instruction for each profes-

sion falls short of addressing those components associated with the other (p. 662).

Those key components are addressed herein with the interdisciplinary model of parenting

coordination.

THE ROLE OF PCs IN THE DUAL MODEL

As ‘necessity was the mother of invention’ in creating the role of the PC, so too was necessity

involved in the evolution of the dual-PC model. Ultimately, a grafting of the role of divorce coach

(who helps a parent effectively manage their emotional response in the negotiations) in the collabora-

tive divorce process model and the role of PC gave rise to the hybrid approach of the dual PC (Behr-

man, 2016).

COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE COACHING IN THE TWO- COACH MODEL 1PC 5DUAL PC

Collaborative team practice, evolved from collaborative law, is a divorce process in which both

members of a couple are represented by their own collaborative attorneys, who have agreed to settle

outside of court and to end their representation if the matter goes to litigation (Nurse & Thompson,

1999; Cameron, 2004; Fairman, 2007; Webb, 2008). When specially trained financial specialists and

mental health neutrals were integrated into collaborative teams along with collaborative attorneys,

collaborative team practice began (Cameron, 2004). Dr. Behrman, trained both as a collaborative

practitioner and a PC, discovered the idea of dual PC through a posting on a collaborative practi-

tioner’s listserv in 2012 as an application of collaborative work to high-conflict postlitigation cases.

346 FAMILY COURT REVIEW