Evaluation of the University of Denver's Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: The First Out‐of‐Court Divorce Option1

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12292
• Date: 01 July 2017
• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Author: Marsha Kline Pruett,Logan Cornett

EVALUATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DENVER’S CENTER FOR

SEPARATING AND DIVORCING FAMILIES: THE FIRST OUT-OF-

COURT DIVORCE OPTION

1

Marsha Kline Pruett and Logan Cornett

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is the first U.S. alternative dispute resolution model to

provide legal dispute resolution, therapeutic, educational, and financial services to separating and divorcing families in a single

location outside the courthouse. Data were collected on 82 families at entry and service completion: service utilization, process

timeliness, family satisfaction, and outcomes. Parents were highly satisfied with the process and demonstrated significant

improvements in personal well-being, co-parenting, parenting quality, and reported reductions in children’s anxiety/depression.

Community partners felt RCSDF was a positive innovation in their community. The RCSDF model represents a culture shift

from an adversarial process to a cohesive alternative that supports the well-being of all family members.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) at the University of Denver was the first inter-

disciplinary out-of-court model, providing a nonadversarial alternative to traditional models of divorce.

The model provided comprehensive services from screening and intake through completion, offering legal, mental

health, and financial services. In the final step, a retired judge held uncontested permanent order hearings at the Center.

Services were provided by teams of law and mental health students, closely supervised by legal and mental health pro-

fessionals, keeping costs to a minimum for families.

Program evaluation with the first 249 families showed that parents with diverse backgrounds participated at the Center

out of concerns for their children’s adjustment and reorganization of the family and its resources.

The average family completed the process in 5–6 months, and parents showed significant improvements in mental

health, parenting, and co-parenting outcomes.

Parents and community partners rated their experience with RSDF as a positive experience across multiple indicators.

Overall, RCSDF had many successes, leading to a launch of a community-based model replicating the University-

based Center to maximize sustainability and universal access.

Keywords: Alternative Dispute Resolution; Child Outcomes; Divorce; Interdisciplinary; Program Evaluation; and

Separation.

“The family doesn’t have to be broken. There is adjustment and it is uncomfortable, but it doesn’t have to

be devastating. RCSDF can bring the family to a better place.”

—Parent participant

Even when families intend to divorce with integrity and support for their children, the structure of

the court system is often at odds with that approach. Court processes continue to emphasize traditional

civil adjudication in family cases, which places parents in the position of adversaries. Professionals

working with divorcing families express widespread concern about how expensive, time consuming,

and divisive the adversarial process is for families (Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, Sbarra, &

Dillon, 2001). Litigation often exacerbates stress and increases conflict, and it is well established that

parental conflict during separation or divorce can increase children’s risk of emotional, behavioral, and

psychological problems (Grych, 2005; see Deutsch & Pruett, 2009).

Courts have an important role in fact finding, protection, and enforcement. However, what many

families need during their separation process is simply access to problem solving and future planning

services. In order to provide less adversarial contexts for separating families, various types of

Correspondence: mruett@smith.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 3, July 2017 375–389

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts