The Issue of Ethics and Authority for Licensed Mental Health Professionals Involved in Parenting Coordination

• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Author: Glenda M. Lux,Jon K. Amundson
• Date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12223

THE ISSUE OF ETHICS AND AUTHORITY FOR LICENSED MENTAL

HEALTH PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN PARENTING

COORDINATION

Jon K. Amundson and Glenda M. Lux

We examine the ethics of licensed mental health professionals accepting the authority inherent in binding arbitration when act-

ing as parenting coordinators (PCs). PCs execute their duties under the umbrella of their professional identity and standards of

practice. Fundamental differences exist in how the law and the behavioral sciences conceive human behavior and authority, in

particular, authority by role and authority by status. Ethical concerns arise when licensed mental health professionals accept

the authority to render binding judgments and ask clients to surrender their autonomy through informed consent. We offer rec-

ommendations for PCs to avoid these ethical complications.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Licensed mental health professionals who provide parenting coordination services need to understand the ethical and

societal implications of providing binding arbitration.

Parenting coordination is a service, not a profession and as such should be practiced within the confines of the stand-

ards of practice and ethics by which the mental health practitioner is defined.

By understanding two types of authority, authority by role and authority by status, the process of informed consent and

the concept of professional identity for PCs become clearer.

PCs can provide valuable and useful services and opinions through the provision of nonbinding opinions.

Keywords: Authority; Binding Arbitration; Ethics; High Conflict; Mental Health; Parenting; and Parenting Coordination.

INTRODUCTION

High-conflict parenting is a significant problem for the courts (Birnbaum & Bala, 2010). It is esti-

mated that at least 10% of couples will experience substantial, enduring legal conflict involving their

children (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2003; Higuchi & Lally, 2014). With the grow-

ing development of alternative dispute resolution practices in the area of family law, parenting coordi-

nation has emerged as a prominent practice to assist jurists in managing high-conflict parenting files

(Association of Family and Conciliation Courts [AFCC], 2003, 2006; Coates et al., 2003; Higuchi &

Lally, 2014; Kirkland, 2010) and has been recognized as an option for alternative dispute resolution

through professional training, in standards of practice, in legislation, and in practice as defined by

the courts (Fidler, 2012; Higuchi & Lally, 2014; Kirkland, 2008; Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008; Parks,

Tindall, & Yingling, 2011). Parentingcoordination is described by the AFCC(2006) as:

a dispute resolution process...[that] assists high-conflict parents to implement their existing parenting plan by

facilitating the resolution of their parenting disputes in a timely manner ... The overall objective of parenting

coordination is to ...protect and sustain safe, healthy and mea ningfulp arent–child relationships (p. 165).

The use of binding arbitration within parenting coordination is a salient practice and is supported

in standards and legislation (AFCC, 2003, 2006; Lally & Deutsch, 2014b; Parks et al., 2011), to the

Correspondence: aapsych@telus.net, glux@luxshortpupp.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 3, July 2016 446–456

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts