The Family Court–Based Stepping Stones Model of Triage: Some Concerns About Safety, Process, and Objectives*

• Date: 01 October 2015
• Author: Desmond Ellis
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12178
• Published date: 01 October 2015

THE FAMILY COURT–BASED STEPPING STONES MODEL

OF TRIAGE: SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY, PROCESS,

AND OBJECTIVES*

Desmond Ellis

This article critically evaluates the recommendation that family court–based mandatory mediation incorporated in a tiered serv-

ice delivery model be replaced by a mandatory screening process incorporated in a stepping stones triage model in which cou-

ples are matched with an appropriate conflict resolution proceeding. My conclusion is that implementation of this

recommendation should be made contingent upon the willingness of its advocates to address concerns with the safety, process,

and objectives as described herein.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Domestic violence screening should be incorporated in the larger triadic process of screening–risk assessment–risk

management.

A Safety First Rule should be followed in screening couples into or out of conflict resolution proceedings.

Screening decisions must be grounded in an empirically validated method of matching couples with appropriate con-

flict resolution proceedings.

Causal mechanisms must be included as items in any risk assessment instrument used in family courts.

Keywords: Bureaucratic Efficiency; Causal Mechanisms; Domestic Violence Risk Assessment; Domestic Violence Risk

Management; Power Imbalances; Safety; and Screening.

INTRODUCTION

In an article published by Ver Steegh, Davis, and Frederick in 2012, readers were given the fol-

lowing advice: before leaping into a court-based system of triage, look at how decisions are made

about matching individual families who bring domestic violence with them to the triage process with

appropriate conflict resolution proceedings. The advice given by these authors is grounded in their

critique of domestic violence assessment in the family court triage system. My concerns with the tri-

age system they focus on (“stepping stones”) include, but are not limited to, domestic violence risk

assessment.

In 1991, Trina Grillo published an influential article that drew attention to the “process dangers” of

mandatory mediation in family courts in California and, by extension, mandatory mediation in family

courts in 41 additional states in the United States (Johnson, Saccuzzo, & Koen, 2005, p. 1023). Since

1991, mandatory mediation has elicited a long list of both process and substantive concerns, including

preeminently (a) physically/emotionally abused mothers losing or not achieving sole custody of chil-

dren because of the presence of power imbalances favoring fathers and (b) the danger faced by female

partners generally and abused female partners in particular during and following their participation in

separation/divorce mediation (Bryan,1992; Fischer, Vidmar, & Ellis,1993; Grillo, 1991; Frederick,

2008; Hart,1990; Johnson et al., 2005; Krieger, 2002; Lerman, 1984; Osyerman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier,

2002; Ontario Association for Interval and Transition Houses, 1989; Treuthart, 1993).

More generally, mandatory mediation is grounded in a one-size-fits-all assumption that is rejected

by critics who believe that mandatory screening should be used to refer individual couples to conflict

resolution proceedings that are appropriate for them.

Correspondence: desellis@yorku.ca

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 53 No. 4, October 2015 650–662

V

C2015 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts