The Family Resolutions Specialty Court (FRSC): An Evidence‐Informed Court‐Based Innovation

• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Author: Marsha Kline Pruett,Jonathan Alschech,Talia Feldscher
• Date: 01 October 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12600

THE FAMILY RESOLUTIONS SPECIALTY COURT (FRSC): AN

EVIDENCE-INFORMED COURT-BASED INNOVATION

Marsha Kline Pruett, Jonathan Alschech, and Talia Feldscher

This article looks at how four distinct programs contributed to the family lawevidence-base supporting the desirability, effec-

tiveness and cost-effectiveness of family dispute resolution programs. The central program discussed is the Family Resolu-

tions Specialty Court (FRSC), an alternative court-based means of settling child-related legal disputes. FRSC is based on

research evidence, but it also incorporates clinical experience and wisdom along with empirical evidence. Evidence from sim-

ilar models informed the development of the program, which was then shaped by a community process to reflect local laws,

procedures and values. This maximized the potential for its acceptance in the community and its sustainability. Initial results

demonstrate that parents and practitioners are highly satisfied with the program, and that parents reported better coparenting

and parent–child relationships. To be effective, the parents had to be held accountable to each other and the court process. A

process evaluation (research about the program) led to programmatic and procedural changes to serve the needs of parents in

high conflict or with other special needs. FRSC provides a prime example of how to utilize science-based evidence to adapt

evidence-informed programs to a local community in which it can thrive.

Key Points for the Family Law Community

Best practices dictate that implementing or scaling up intervention models begins with a community-wide input

process that facilitates community acceptance and sustainability through ongoing community support.

Defining characteristics of the Family Resolutions Specialty Court (FRSC) include parents’self-determination; focus

on needs and interests, not rights; positive communication, and informality in the process while holding to legalr ules

and procedures.

FRSC offers clinical (case management), educational (parenting/coparenting, emphasis on communication) and legal

(mediation, drafting agreements, child’s attorney) programcomponents.

Programs based on and backed by evidence are likely to have the greatest impact; therefore, family law practitioners

of all disciplines should have knowledge of and support evidence-informed and evidence-based programs.

Keywords: Collaborative; Family Court; Non-Adversarial; Outcomes; Program Evaluation.

The Family Resolutions Specialty Court (FRSC) stands as a prime example of a “happy”mar-

riage of law, mental health and social science research. It evolved as an empirically informed prac-

tice (Epstein, 2011; Nevo & Slonim-Nevo, 2011). It is based on research evidence, but it also

incorporates clinical experience and wisdom along with empirical evidence. Moreover, it was

guided by a thorough collaborative process that drew in - and on - the community from its incep-

tion. In doing so, an evidence base informed the intervention so that it was shaped to fit in its own

setting, with a greater opportunity to ensure a process that would be accepted by its local commu-

nity. This maximized the potential that it could be sustained, recognizing that often, effective

models fail in the stage of scaling up or implementing a successful model in a new setting (Fagan

et al., 2019).

In this article, we describe two models from very dissimilar locales that shared the determination

to develop non-adversarial ways of supporting families in transition through separation and divorce.

They each were created out of concerns that emerge from clinical experience and decades of

Corresponding: mpruett@smith.edu

The authors wish to acknowledge The Brown Endowment to the Smith College School for Social Work, Clinical Research

Institute, for its financial support; Benjamin Capistrant and Olivia Pruett for their contributions to the research.

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 59 No. 4, October 2021 656–672, doi: 10.1111/fcre.12600

© 2021 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

empirical evidence documenting that separation and divorce are crises in family life that can result

in the temporary or lasting degradation of optimal parenting, parent–child relationships, and

resulting mental health and behavioral problems of children and adolescence (Amato, 2001;

Kelly, 2000; also see Cavanagh & Fomby, 2019 for discussion how this holds true especially for

white and socioeconomically advantaged youth). They each began from the starting point that pro-

viding information and skills to parents and the professionals that serve them through the legal pro-

cess must center on the goals of supporting families by reducing conflict (legal and relational) that

provides a central basis for many problems that can emerge during this family transition point

(Emery, 1982; Lansford, 2009), especially without intervention or supportive services that empha-

size the family members’strengths (O’Hara, Sandler, & Wolchik, n.d.). Each model considered the

needs of unmarried parents, a large segment of the separating population who are typically young,

low-income, and with limited education, who face more than the usual challenges of raising chil-

dren (McLanahan & Garfinkel, 2012), and who typically eschew going to court when separating

(Huntington, 2016). Finally, each model replicated aspects of the previous model, including evalua-

tion instruments, in order to achieve some continuity across settings.

The Australian Family Resource Centers (FRC) provided the groundwork through theory and

research for establishment of the Center for Out of Court Divorce, set up by the Institute for the

Advancement of American Legal System (IAALS) in Denver, CO. Each model provided research

evidence to suggest its efficacy, in essence providing two case studies. For different reasons, each

model was limited in its ability to expand to new jurisdictions across the U.S. or other countries.

FRSC stood on the shoulders of both models, but with the critical distinction that it sought to bring

out-of-court programs back into the court using similar non-adversarial and child-centered values,

interventions, and procedures. In this way, it sought to adapt lessons learned into a working model

that started small and is building momentum, with the promise of being expandable across the state

and into legal jurisdictions elsewhere.

I. AUSTRALIAN FAMILY RESOURCE CENTERS (FRCs)

FRCs were initiated in Australia in 2006 with the intention of supporting families during separa-

tion and divorce without judicial involvement. As of 2016, there were sixty-five government-funded

centers throughout the country (Parkinson, 2011). Run by local NGOs, the Centers combined infor-

mation provision, education, and mediation programs in a coordinated way in order to support fam-

ily reorganization and well-being. Each family receives a Family Consultant, who remains in

contact with that family and serves a case management function. The Centers’focus on helping par-

ents address relationship concerns in order to decide to stay together or separate in a non-adversarial

way, whether they were married or not. The FRCs also provide support to families who do not qual-

ify for legal aid and might not go to court. In essence, it is a national early intervention program for

families in transition (Schepard & Emery, 2013). The FRCs reframe parental conflicts arising from

divorce and separation from a legal problem with relationship conflicts to a community public

health problem with legal elements (Schepard & Emery, 2013, p. 2). A unique aspect of the FRCs

is that they aimed not only to provide intervention but also to change social norms with an empha-

sis on self-determination for families.

Their locality underscored an emphasis on accessibility, as they were placed in shopping centers

and familiar public spaces instead of court houses.

Services at FRCs begin with an individual session, in which parents receive basic advice about

their options and sources of help for dealing with whatever problems might have led them to call

into the Center. If the parent needs help with postseparation parenting arrangements, then the

adviser educates them about mediation (Parkinson, 2011), which is the primary service provided at

the Centers. A mandatory pre-mediation screening and attendance at a parenting information ses-

sion precede the mediation, which remains open to parents within a two-year period in order for

parents to make modifications as necessary (Parkinson, 2011).

Pruett et al./FRSC: COURT-BASED DR PROGRAM 657