Exploring Best Practices in Parenting Coordination: A National Survey of Current Practices and Practitioners

• Author: Robin O. Belcher‐Timme,Zoe Belcher‐Timme,Elisabeth N. Gibbings,Hal S. Shorey
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12058
• Date: 01 October 2013
• Published date: 01 October 2013

EXPLORING BEST PRACTICES IN PARENTING COORDINATION:

A NATIONAL SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICES

AND PRACTITIONERS

Robin O. Belcher-Timme, Hal S. Shorey, Zoe Belcher-Timme, and Elisabeth N. Gibbings

This study addresses a lack of empirical research informing evidence-based practices in the field of parenting coordination.

We conducted a national survey of parenting coordinators (PCs), using the PC Network of the Association of Family and

Conciliation Courts. Participants (N=79) were presented with narrative descriptions of interventions prescribed by parenting

coordination trainers, and rated how effective they perceivedeach inter ventionto be in resolving conflicts. Results indicated

that PCs perceived specific interventions to be more effective than others. Contrary to expectations, legal and mental health

professionals surveyed did not differ significantly in the degree to which theyrated inter ventions as effective. Implications for

interdisciplinary, evidence-based practice and training of PCs are presented, although caution should be exercised when

attempting to generalize findings from a limited sample to the broader population.

Keypoints for the Family Court Community

• To gain insight into interventions prescribed by parenting coordination trainers across the country.

• To understand which interventions are seen as most important by a national sample of parenting coordinators.

• Toexplore the differences in perceivedimportanceof specific interventions betweenlegal and mentalhealth professionals.

• To guide training and collaboration in the field of parenting coordination.

Keywords: Parenting Coordination;Parenting Coordinator;and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Since its inception in the early 1990s, Parenting Coordination has steadily grown in popularity as

an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) tool. For years, legal and mental health professionals have

lauded the emergence of this child-centered process, by which de minimus issues can be resolved

outside of the courtroom, and through which parents may learn to shield their children from the

developmental dangers of high-conflict divorce.1Theroots of parenting coordination are planted in the

fields of mediation, arbitration, co-parent counseling, and case management, which makes parenting

coordination a unique amalgam of these frequently used ADRs.

While many ADR processes purport to save money, time, and reduce interpersonal distress, they

tend to focus on the time leading up to the decision, and fail to provide adequate post-decision

management. In other words, they offer an alternative to the problems of adversarial courtroom

processes, but once custody is decided, they do little to protect the children (Boyan& Termini, 2005).

The negative effects of significant familial conflict on the development of children have been the

focus of research for many years (Guidubaldi, Perry, & Nastasi, 1987; Allison & Furstenberg, 1989;

Garrity & Baris, 1994; Downey, 1994; Amato, 2000; Amato & Fowler, 2002; McLanahan & Teitler,

1999). In an effort to protect the children involved in these heated disputes, and appreciating the

general effectiveness of ADR interventions, it is logical to adopt a more child-centered approach.

Parenting coordination seeks to do just that. The best interests of the child are protected because

trained professionals help resolve specific conflicts after the judge has ruled on custody matters. Thus,

parents need not adopt adversarial roles wherein they continuously and needlessly return to court.

Reflecting its many potential benefits, parenting coordination has grown exponentially since

like-minded psychologists and lawyers started organizing in the early 1990s. Parenting coordination

Correspondence: rtimme11@yahoo.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 51 No. 4, October 2013 651–665

© 2013 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts