A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Two Court‐Connected Programs for High‐Conflict Families

• Author: Liza Cohen Hita,Irwin N. Sandler,Sanford L. Braver,Lorey A. Wheeler
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12225
• Date: 01 July 2016

A RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS TRIAL OF TWO

COURT-CONNECTED PROGRAMS FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

1

Sanford L. Braver, Irwin N. Sandler, Liza Cohen Hita, and Lorey A. Wheeler

Parents who experience great amounts of legal conflict as they dissolve their relationship and arrive at their parenting arrange-

ments require an outsize proportion of courts’ time and resources. Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that conflict

has a deleterious effect on their children. We partnered with the family court to conduct a study comparing the effectiveness of

two programs for families deemed by their judge to be high conflict and thereby mandated to a program. Both involved one

3-hour session; the existing program, Parent Conflict Resolution (PCR), used exhortational lecture and video; the newly

designed experimental program, Family Transitions Guide (FTG), based on motivational interviewing, employed exercises

attempting to get parents to decide for themselves what they needed to do for the sake of their children. Parents were assigned

at random to one of the two programs (the literature often terms this a randomized clinical trial) and were interviewed just

before it began and 9 months later, as was a child. Results showed that child’s report of their own well-being was significantly

improved by FTG as compared to PCR and that these effects were mediated by children feeling less caught in the middle. On

several variables, parent report showed that parents in PCR as compared to FTG felt decreased problems in co-parenting and

less interparental conflict, although the effects were not consistent across mother and father report. There was also evidence of

diminished legal conflict over 9 months in FTG as compared to PCR.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Legal conflict is a great problem for courts and interparental conflict a distinct problem for divorcing families.

We developed a program for high-conflict families, Family Transitions Guide (FTG), derived from a motivational

interviewing approach.

FTG was compared to the usual such program, Parent Conflict Resolution (PCR), in a randomized trial.

Children’s report of their own well-being was significantly improved by FTG as compared to PCR, due to children

feeling less caught in the middle.

There was also evidence of diminished legal conflict over 9 months in FTG as compared to PCR.

Keywords: Caught in the Middle; Child Well-Being; Court-Mandated Attendance; High Parental Conflict; Legal Conflict;

Motivational Interviewing; RandomizedTrial; and Self-Presentation Bias.

INTRODUCTION

Parents who experience a great amount of legal conflict as they dissolve their marital rela-

tionship and arrive at their parenting arrangements pose difficult challenges and expenses to

the court (Schepard, 2004). Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) estimate that those who are deemed

“high-conflict” families comprise up to 25% of all divorcing couples. Such families require an

outsize proportion of courts’ efforts (Pruett, Nangle, & Bailey, 2000; Depner, Cannata, &

Ricci, 1994). In addition, the disputes between these parents often involve difficult interperso-

nal and emotional issues that are not readily solved by legal decisions. A presiding family law

judge in a large southwestern city estimated that courts spend nearly 40 to 50% of their time

on high conflict cases (and even more of the headaches), because they return back to court

repeatedly and their hearings take longer (personal communication, Hon. Carey Hyatt, May 9,

2012).

In addition to the problems they present to the judicial system, high-conflict couples may cause

tremendous stress for themselves and for their children. Therefore, it is important to have

Corresponding: Sanford.braver@asu.edu, Irwin.sandler@asu.edu, lorey@unl.edu, Lhita@asu.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 3, July 2016 349–363

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts