July 2017

• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Author: Robert E. Emery,Barbara A. Babb
• Date: 01 July 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12287

EDITORIAL NOTE

JULY 2017

In the current issue of Family Court Review (FCR), we offer an exciting tasting menu to our sub-

scribers for your summer reading. We begin with a diverse selection of small bites, including five

social science articles on a variety of innovative topics. Next, we offer a main course with a feature

article on entrenched parenting disputes, served together with two thought-provoking commentaries.

All of this is topped off with a selection of desserts, including two student Notes from Hofstra Law

School FCR staff members and two articles written by the winners of our law student writing compe-

tition. For those looking ahead, you can expect a return to our more normal menu of special issues of

FCR, including thematic journals on joint custody around the world, children’s human rights,

research on constructive and destructive parental conflict, emerging law and social science related to

same-sex relationships, articles from the 7

th

World Congress on Family Law and Human Rights, and

articles on the Hague Convention.

Jennifer E. McIntosh and Evelyn S. Tan lead off the current issue with a different take on the

critical topic of parenting plans for very young children. They present promising data on their new

Young Children in Divorce and Separation (YCIDS) program, an intervention that involves parents

doing extra reading and also having a consultation with a trained professional on the needs of young

children living in two homes. In a pilot study comparing mediation with YCIDS versus mediation

with assigned reading alone, these investigators have found significantly reduced conflict and a lower

level of legal proceedings in the intervention group, among other positive results.

In the next article, William RJP Brown, Lauren Behrman, and Jeffrey Zimmerman describe a

new model of parenting coordination involving dual parenting coodinators, a hybrid of parenting

coordination and the dual coaches often used in collaborative law. These authors describe their

approach both conceptually and with a case illustration. They suggest the dual model combines effec-

tive elements of both legal and psychological dispute resolution, and they urge research and further

innovation, albeit with an awareness of ethical and legal challenges.

In the articles that follow, Claire Houston, Nicholas Bala, and Michael Saini discuss the complex

problem of crossover between custody and child protection cases. Using survey and interview data,

they suggest the need for clear roles and policies in handling these tricky cases. Marsha Kline Pruett

and Logan Cornett then describe their evaluation of the University of Denver Institute for the

Advancement of the American Legal System’s Center for Separating and Divorcing Families. The

authors report about both the positive results of the evaluation and the Center’s unique blending of

legal, therapeutic, and financial services. Finally, Fernanda S. Rossi, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy

G. Applegate, Connie J. Beck, Jeannie M. Adams, and Darrell F. Hale document potential benefits

of shuttle, online, audio-visual, and text-based mediation for cases involving intimate partner vio-

lence or abuse. Their discussion concerns indirect literature based on the use of mediation in other

kinds of disputes, but readers can anticipate learning about their direct research on these topics in the

not-too-distant future.

In a special feature, Bruce Smyth and Lawrence Moloney raise provocative ideas about

entrenched parenting disputes, attributing some to the situational dynamics and others to enduring

interpersonal problems that they term “interparental hatred.” The authors conceptualize interparental

hatred, which they view as less amenable to traditional dispute resolution, in terms of psychological

dynamics, particularly as a defense against profound vulnerabilities owing, for example, to hurt and

rejection. Steven Demby delves further into this psychological conceptualization, warning (among

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 3, July 2017 327–328

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts