Parenting Coordination In Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence

• Author: David A. Donner,Robin M. Deutsch,Leslie M. Drozd
• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12512

PARENTING COORDINATION IN CASES INVOLVING INTIMATE

PARTNER VIOLENCE

Leslie M. Drozd, Robin M. Deutsch, and David A. Donner

Parenting Coordination is a “hybrid legal-mental health role that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict

management, dispute resolution and, often times, decision-making functions (AFCC, 2019, https://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/

PublicDocuments/Guidelines%20for%20PC%20with%20Appendex.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-190220-990). This article addresses

issues that arise when the case has allegations or findings of intimate partner violence (IPV). Considerations of the type of

IPV, the severity, timing, perpetrator and effects on coparenting are discussed in the context of the parenting coordinator’s

role. Through screening and assessment, we differentiate the kinds of cases with the presence of IPV where a PC may be

effective as opposed to other IPV cases that may not predict success for retaining a PC.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Parenting coordination works in some cases with IPV and is ill-advised in other IPV cases.

Screening for IPV should occur in all parenting coordination cases and is best done first as part of the parenting coor-

dinator’s (PC’s) intake process before the stipulation and order appointing the Parenting Coordinator is signed or the

case proceeds. Screening is an ongoing process and not a one-time event at intake.

If a screening is positive for IPV, an assessment or further information gathering is warranted again, optimally before

the PC work begins.

It is highly probable that parenting coordination is incompatible in cases of IPV involving coercive control, with or

without physical abuse, and in cases with a history of chronic battering.

Parenting coordination will more likely be helpful in high conflict families in which the aggression is more conflict-

instigated (as defined herein) and the “control”issues between the coparents are more typical of divorcing couples

and not characterized by intimidation, fear, and one partner controlling the other partner’s life with the goal of elimi-

nating or diminishing their personal liberty or parental role.

Identifying whether parenting coordination will work for families with domestic violence or not, will involve an

intake IPV assessment of the behaviors associated with the aggression, the context for the aggression, the meaning of

the aggression, and the effects of the aggression.

Ultimately the focus needs to be on the structure of the parenting coordination process to help provide safety in the

IPV cases while helping the coparents lower the conflict with the other coparent.

Keywords: Coparenting; Divorce; Domestic Violence; Intimate Partner Violence; Parent Coordinator; Parenting

Coordination.

Conventional legal culture suggests that every litigant deserves their “day in court,”but that is

not always feasible; nor is it always a desirable way to resolve cases—most notably family law

cases. For decades, courts have searched for ways to balance three issues: acknowledge litigant’s

desire to be heard; address the special issues that these cases present; and manage the high volume

of family law cases, without lengthy trials. As early as the 1970s, many states began to require that

parties in family law cases attend mediation before any contested custody hearing. In the 1980s and

1990s, challenges arose as some cases and issues were ill-suited for mediation. Advocates for the

rights of victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) began to insist th at mandatory child custody

mediation could force victims of IPV to run the risk of participating in a process that might perpetu-

ate an already abusive power imbalance (Grillo, 1991). In response to these concerns, most states

that have made custody mediation mandatory also have opt-out rules which provide that custody

Corresponding: leslie@lesliedrozdphd.com; dd@davidadonnerlaw.com; drrobindeutsch@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 58 No. 3, July 2020 774–792

© 2020 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

mediation is not mandatory in cases that involve allegations or findings of IPV. However most

states do allow for such court-mediation if the abused parent is willing to stipulate to mediation.

The search for alternatives to litigation and mediation catapulted into another dimension in the

1990s (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2003; Kelly, 2014) when some states and

provinces adopted the role of a parenting coordinator (PC) (Baris et al., 2001). In California, the

refinement of the role of the Special Master in 1994 (Kelly, 2014) came to allow a private mediator,

mental health professional, or attorney to act as a PC, to work with families post-divorce, or after

splitting up if they never were married, to help parties implement their parenting plan and resolve

child-related parenting disputes in a timely and child focused manner. Additional goals of parenting

coordination are to reduce conflict between coparents and to improve their communication and

problem-solving skills. Improving these coparent and parenting skills is not the focus of family law

litigation.

Several decades later, the question surfaced as to whether parenting coordination is compatible

or incompatible in cases with IPV. Is parenting coordination a viable option for families in which

the conflict has risen to or included some kind, size, or form of intimate partner violence (IPV)?

This article will address the conjunction of these two issues. The first consideration is how PCs

should proceed in cases where there have been allegations of IPV, where there has been a court

finding of some form of IPV, and/or when the PC suspects that there may be IPV. This article will

also describe the cases in which PCs’work is compatible when IPV findings or allegations are pre-

sent, as well as those in which IPV findings or allegations are present and PC work is incompatible

and thus may potentially be harmful. Thoughtful screening of IPV issues can help prevent a PC pro-

cess from inadvertently providing a forum for further IPV dynamics.

I. WHAT IS PARENTING COORDINATION AND WHAT IS INTIMATE PARTNER/

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

A. DEFINITION: PARENTING COORDINATION

In 2019, the AFCC adopted a set of recommended Guidelines for Parenting Coordination that

defined parenting coordination as a child-focused process conducted by a licensed mental health or

family law professional, and/or a certified, qualified or regulated family mediator under the rules or

laws of their jurisdiction, with practical professional experience with high conflict family cases

(AFCC, 2019). These Guidelines were a revision of the 2005 AFCC Guidelines for Parenting

Coordination. (Figure 1).

B. DEFINITION: INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

is defined broadly in AFCC’s, 2016 Guidelines for Examining Intimate Partner Violence: A Sup-

plement to the AFCC Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation and the AFCC Guidelines

for Parenting Coordination (2019) that includes:

a. Physically aggressive behaviors that involve the intentional use of physical force with the

potential for causing injury, harm, disability, or death.

b. Sexually aggressive behaviors that involve non-consensual sexual activity through the use

of force, threats, deception, or exploitation.

c. Economically aggressive behaviors that use financial means to intentionally diminish or

deprive another of economic security, stability, standing, or self-sufficiency.

d. Psychologically aggressive behaviors that involve intentional harm to the other party’s

emotional safety, security, or well-being.

e. Coercive controlling behaviors that subordinate the will of another through violence, intim-

idation, intrusiveness, isolation, and/or control (AFCC, 2016).

Drozd et al./PARENTING COORDINATION IN CASES 775