Search
Close this search box.

Justice Dashboard

Justice Dashboard

Search
Close this search box.

Recommendations on family problems further explained

The recommended interventions in the guideline are developed according to the Guideline Method. More information and further elaboration on the selected interventions can be found on this page.

Click here for the Guideline Method

Authoritative parenting

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify three interventions, these being:
∙ Authoritative parenting
∙ Authoritarian parenting
∙ Permissive parenting

Authoritative parenting is characterised by having high levels of control and maturity demands, combined with high levels of nurturance. These parents rely more on positive than negative sanctions to gain their child’s compliance and encourage their child to express himself/herself when the child disagrees (Handbook, p. 452).

Authoritarian parents display high levels of control along with low levels of clarity and nurturance. These parents rely on power-assertive forms of discipline. They are less likely than authoritative parents to provide reasons when attempting to alter their child’s behaviour and discourage expressions of the child’s disagreement (Handbook, p. 452).

Permissive parenting is characterised by parents who display low levels of control and maturity demands, combined with higher levels of nurturance. They are less likely than authoritative parents to enforce rules or structure for their child’s activities (Handbook, p. 452).

For the purpose of this PICO question, we compare authoritative parenting with the two other forms of parenting, because authoritative parenting shows a high level of demandingness and nurturance, while the other two parenting styles either have a low level of demandingness or nurturance (Handbook, p. 452).

For children, is authoritative parenting more effective than other forms of parenting, for their well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis, Peace Palace Library.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: parenting, upbringing, raising, arrangements, children, development, upgrowing, well-being, divorce.

The four main sources used for this particular subject are:
∙ Sanford M. Dornbusch, Philip L. Ritter, P. Herbert Leiderman, Donald F. Roberts and Michael J.
Fraleigh, The Relation of Parenting Style to Adolescent School Performance (1987)
∙ Fletcher, Steinberg and Sellers, Adolescents’ well-being as a function of perceived interparental consistency (1999)
∙ The Handbook of Family Communication, edited by Anita L. Vangelisi, Chapters 9, 20 and 27 (2004)
∙ Erlanger A. Turner, Megan Chandler and Robbert W. Heffer, The Influence of Parenting Styles, Achievement Motivation and Self-Efficacy on Academic Performance in College Students (2009)
∙ Linda Nielsen, Shared Parenting After Divorce: A Review of Shared Residential Parenting Research” (2011)

These sources are largely based on an RCT and several observational studies. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘low’ to ‘moderate’.

Recommendation

For the child’s interest, authoritative parenting by both parents with warmth, support, effective monitoring, control, discipline, positive discussion and responsiveness to children’s needs is essential (Handbook, p. 204). Studies indicate the following:
∙ Children of separated parents benefit the most when their father is actively engaged in their lives
across a wide range of daily activities and when he has an authoritative rather than permissive or authoritarian parenting style (Nielsen, p. 591)
∙ Children are less depressed, were less aggressive and had higher self-esteem when both parents are authoritative (Nielsen, p. 599)
∙ Children with at least one authoritative parent have been linked to better academic competence and higher grades (Fletcher, Steinberg and Sellers p. and Dornbusch et al., p. 1256)
∙ Children from parents applying an authoritative parenting style do better at school compared to the other parenting styles (Dornbusch et al., p. 1256).
∙ A consistent and authoritative parenting style is effective (Afifi, p. 751). Parenting characteristics such as supportiveness and warmth continue to play an important role in influencing a student’s academic performance (Turner et al., p. 343).
∙ Authoritative parenting is associated with lower levels of substance abuse for children (Handbook, p. 616)

Parenting characteristics such as supportiveness and warmth continue to play an important role in influencing a student’s academic performance (Turner et al., p. 343).

Children from families applying authoritarian or permissive parenting tend to do less well at school compared to the authoritative parenting style (Dornbusch et al., p. 1256 and Turner, p. 338).
Parenting styles with controlling contexts (such as the authoritarian parenting style) diminish autonomous motivation and enhance controlled motivation (Turner, p. 339). In other words, the authoritarian parenting style limits the ability of children to make their own choices and control their own life.

In determining whether the authoritative parenting style is more effective than the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.

The literature suggests that, regarding academic achievement, the authoritative parenting style is in the interest of the child while the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles are not.
The balance of outcomes is in favour of an authoritarian parenting style.

Taking into account the balance of outcomes, the high effect on children’s well-being and the strength of the evidence, we make the following strong recommendation: For children, authoritative parenting is more effective than other forms of parenting for their well-being.

Limiting the disclosure
of inappropriate information

Interventions and evidence

During a first assessment of the available literature, we were able to identify an intervention for sharing information with children, this being:

parents limiting the disclosure of information about the separation.

For children, is actively limiting disclosure of information about the other parent more effective than sharing all information for their well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: communication, parental conflict, separation, divorce, children, information, revealing, disclosure.

The three main sources used for this particular subject are:
∙ Matthew R. Sanders, W. Kim Halford and Brett C. Behrens, Parental Divorce and Premarital Couple Communication (1999)
∙ Tamara D. Afifi, Tara McManus, Susan Hutchinson and Birgitta Baker, Inappropriate Parental Divorce Disclosures, the Factors that Prompt them, and their Impact on Parents’ and Adolescents’ Well-Being (2007)
∙ Paul Schrodt and Tamara D. Afifi, Communication Processes that Predict Young Adults’ Feelings of Being Caught and their Associations with Mental Health and Family Satisfaction (2007)

The article by Sanders, Halford and Behrens is based on a detailed observational analysis of couples’ interaction. The article by Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson and Baker bases its findings mostly on clinical and empirical evidence. The article by Schrodt and Afifi uses both empirical and meta-analysis to support its findings. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘low’ to ‘moderate’.

Recommendation

It is important to note that, based on uncertainty reduction theory, children need some information about the separation in order to reduce their uncertainty about the state of their family (Afifi, McManus, p. 80).

Research has shown that parents’ inappropriate disclosures give children psychological distress, physical ailments and feelings of being caught between their parents (Afifi, McManus, p. 79). Examples of inappropriate information are: negative information about the other parent (including complaints on lack of child-support), sensitive information and information judged not to be suitable (such as on financial issues, the reason for separation and personal concerns of the parent), and information that makes children feel caught between their parents (Schrodt, p. 209). If children are completely uninformed about the separation, they can feel deceived, which can produce mistrust, diminished satisfaction with their parental communication, and a fear of establishing committed romantic relationships upon maturity (Afifi, McManus, p. 80). It can be difficult to for some parents to determine the fine line between disclosing the right amount of information and inappropriate information.

In determining whether actively limiting disclosure of information to children about the other parent is more effective than sharing all information for their well-being, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. The available literature suggests that certain information is not to be disclosed for the sake of the wellbeing of the child. In particular, revealing negative information about one parent would have severe negative effect physically and psychologically in both the long and short term. This type of information is classified as ‘inappropriate’. However, it is important to keep in mind that children should be informed during the separation process.

In light of the undesired outcomes of revealing inappropriate information to children, we make the following recommendation: For the well-being of children, it is appropriate that parents disclose information on the separation, albeit in a considered and limited way.

Intake

Interventions and evidence

According to the available literature, there is a distinction between two approaches to adjudication in cases of separation:
An adversarial (or traditional) approach in a family context (where the judge only focuses on the parties and their legal dispute).

A therapeutic approach in a family context, such as unified family courts (where the judge focuses on the family as a social system), characterized by a problem-solving judge.

The adversarial approach is formal and only takes place within court. The main aim of taking an adversarial approach is truth-finding. It is a monopoly approach (instead of multidisciplinary) and its basic premises are post-conflict solutions, conflict and dispute resolution (Freiberg, p. 3). Taking an adversarial approach generally results in more claims of the
parties (Miller and Sarat, p. 542) compared to a non-adversarial approach.

The goal of the therapeutic approach is to maximize the positive effects of legal interventions on the social, emotional and psychological functioning of individual families. The problem-solving judge is a critical actor in this endeavor. Rather than solving discrete legal issues [such as in the adversarial approach], the problem-solving judge attempts to understand and address the underlying problem and emotional issues and helps participants to effectively deal with the problem (Boldt and Singer, p. 91 and 95-96). The problem-solving judge embraces collaborative and interdisciplinary approaches. He motivates individuals to accept needed services (Boldt and Singer, p. 96). All legal actors involved in the therapeutic approach to separation are therapeutic agents, considering the mental health and psychological wellbeing of the people they encounter in the legal setting (Babb and Moran, p. 1063).

In some jurisdictions the primary role of family courts has shifted from [adversarial] adjudication of disputes to therapeutic approach (Lande, p. 431). For example, the unified family court system in the United States.
Unified family court systems are characterized by a holistic approach to family legal problems, an emphasis on problem-solving and alternative dispute resolution and the provision and coordination of a comprehensive range of court-connected family services (Boldt and Singer, p. 91). All matters involving the same family should be handled by one single judge (or judicial team) (Boldt and Singer, p. 96).

For people separating, is a therapeutic approach to adjudication more effective than the adversarial approach to adjudication for their well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis, Peace Palace Library, ResearchGate, Bloomberg Law and LexisNexis Academic.
For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: mediation, litigation, judicial, court-annexed, judge, decision, adjudication, needs-based, problem-solving,

The main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:
∙ Richard E. Miller and Austin Sarat, Grievances, Claims and Disputes: assessing the Adversary Culture (1980)
∙ Nancy Ver Steegh, Yes, No and Maybe: Informed Decision Making About Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence (2003)
∙ Barbara A. Babb and Judith D. Moran, Substance Abuse, Families and Unified Family Courts: the Creation of a Caring Justice System (1999)
∙ Jana B. Singer, Dispute Resolution and the Post-divorce Family: Implications of a Paradigm Shift (2009)
∙ Andrew Schepard, Parental Conflict Prevention Programs and the Unified Family Court: A Public Health Perspective (1998)
∙ Peter Salem, The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: The Beginning of the End For Mandatory Mediation (2009)
∙ John Lande, The Revolution in Family Law Dispute Resolution (2012)
∙ Richard Boldt and Jana Singer, Juristocracy in the Trenches: Problem solving Judges and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Drug Treatment Courts and Unified Family Courts (2006)
∙ Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts (2003)
∙ Arie Freiberg, Non-adversarial approaches to criminal justice (2007)

Most sources used for the evidence are expert opinions. Some other sources rely on multiple observational studies.
The strength of evidence is categorised as ‘low’ according to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations.

Recommendation

Based on its study on the unmet legal needs of children and their families, the American Bar Association has recommended the establishment of unified family courts in all jurisdictions.

The problem-solving judge addresses the legal and accompanying emotional and social issues challenging each family.
Informal court processes [such as mediation] and social service agencies are coordinated to produce a comprehensive resolution tailored to the individual family’s legal, personal, emotional and social needs. The result is a one-judge system that is more efficient and more compassionate towards families in crisis (Babb and Moran, p. 4).

Survey respondents report that their unified family courts (UFC) are organized with broad-based subject matter jurisdiction over virtually all family-related disputes. Survey respondents report favourably on the use of the one-judge, one-family assignment system. Reasons given fall into two broad groupings; efficiency and therapeutic justice [or approach] (Schepard and Bozzomo, p. 336).

The Supervisory Judge of the Grafton County Family Division in New Hampshire expressed her belief that one judge per family affords consistency, accountability and ensures adequate and fair time for all concerned parties. An Administrative Office of the Court in North Carolina stated that the UFC model resulted in better case management, which ultimately led to speedy case resolution. The Senior Deputy Court Administrator for Family Court in the 20th District in Florida, stated that one of the greatest indicators of success of a UFC was empowerment of families by therapeutic justice, which enables families to be better off at the end of the process than they were when they entered the system (Schepard and Bozzomo, p. 336-337).

Evidence suggests that the ‘traditional’ adversarial approach to separation drives parents further apart, rather than encouraging them to work together for the benefit of their child (Schepard, p. 95).

Separating couples express overwhelming dissatisfaction with the adversarial approach to separation. According to a prominent study, 50% to 70% of litigants thought that the legal system was “impersonal, intimidating and intrusive” (Ver Steegh, p. 163). Another study states that 71% of parents report that the [adversarial] court process escalated the level of conflict and distrust to a further extreme. Separating couples were also dissatisfied because the process was too lengthy, costly, inefficient and not sufficiently tailored to their needs (Ver Steegh, p. 163).

Social science evidence suggests that, particularly for children, separation was not a one-time legal event but an ongoing emotional psychological process. Research also shows that the higher the level of parental conflict to which children were exposed, the more negative the effects of family dissolution (Boldt and Singer, p. 93-94).

Therefore, it is argued that, in order to serve children’s interests, family courts should abandon the adversarial paradigm in favor of approaches that would help parents manage their conflict and encourage them to develop positive relationships (Boldt and Singer, p. 94).

UFCs promote therapeutic approach for families because they create a single forum to develop a plan for family rehabilitation without the specter of conflicting orders and proceedings. The Colorado court system recently has reported that as a result of a court structure that fragments family disputes between different courts. In a non-unified
court system, different family members can end up in different courtrooms (Schepard and Bozzomo, p. 341).

In determining whether taking a therapeutic approach to adjudication is better than taking the adversarial approach for the well-being of parents and children during a separation process, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.

From the above evidence, the benefits of a therapeutic approach outweigh those of an adversarial approach. The adversarial approach to adjudication is not satisfying the needs of people. Despite that the evidence in favour of the therapeutic approach is very low, the undesirable effects and their risks are also low.

For people separating, taking a therapeutic approach to adjudication is more effective than the adversarial approach to adjudication for their well-being.

Mutual constructive

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify the following interventions:
∙ Mutual constructive communication
∙ Demand/withdraw communication
∙ Mutual avoidance communication

Mutual constructive communication is interactive, involves constructive problem-solving and focuses on avoiding conflict (Handbook, p. 203). Both parties try to engage in a mutual adaptive discussion (Diamond, p. 202). Demand/ withdraw communication involves a pattern where one partner pursues more closeness and contact, while the other partner desires more distance and responds by withdrawing and avoiding (Handbook, p. 203). Mutual avoidance is typified by both partners avoiding communicating as much as possible (Handbook, p. 203). For the purpose of this topic, ‘mutual constructive communication’ will be compared with both ‘mutual avoidance’ and ‘demand/withdraw communication’ simultaneously.

For the parents and children, is mutual constructive communication between parents more effective than mutual avoidance for their well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis. For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: communication, spouses, patterns, rules, timing, divorce, children, relationship, parent.

∙ The main source used for this particular subject is The Handbook of Family Communication, edited by Anita L. Vangelisi. Three chapters have been used in particular, these being:
– Chapter 9, Communication in Divorced and Single-Parent Families, Julia M. Lewis, Judith S.
– Wallerstein and Linda Johnson-Reitz
– Chapter 13, Mothers and Fathers Parenting Together, William J. Doherty and John M. Beaton
– Chapter 19, Communication, ‘Conflict and the Quality of Family Relationships’, Alan Sillars, Daniel J. Canary and Melissa Tafoya

∙ Other sources used:
– Diamond and Brimhall, Communication During Conflict: Differences Between Individuals in First and Second Marriages (2013)
– Guy Bodemann, Andrea Kaiser, Kurt Hahlweg and Gabriele Fehm-Wolfsdorf, Communication patterns during marital conflict: A cross-cultural replication (1998)

The Handbook of Family Communication presents an analysis of cutting-edge research and theory on family interaction. It integrates perspectives of researchers and practitioners. Chapter 9 is mostly based on large-scale observational studies, and a few meta-analyses that help to understand what happens when families separate. Chapter 13 and 19 mostly rely on observational studies. Evidence can be regarded as being low to moderate.

Recommendation

Communication between parents becomes more difficult and energy consuming after separation. Unexpected and overwhelming demands after separation results in less communication by the parents. Parents will need to communicate more often and effectively, so that the parenting styles of both parents are consistent (Handbook, p. 204). Research shows that mutual constructive communication is generally designated as the healthiest, most functional interactive pattern. Separated parents must be willing to interact, communicate and cooperate with each other regarding child-related issues, despite any feelings of rejection, remorse, bitterness, or anger. This is because parental responsibilities after separation continue to exist, and communication is essential to transform and adapt to accommodate to parents’ new roles (Handbook, p. 204). The ability of separated parents to co-parent together, communicate about their children, to cooperate to set limits, to problem solve effectively and to provide consistent positive affective messages has a major influence on the ability of children to adjust after separation (Handbook, p. 205).

Mutual avoidance communication prevents the airing of thoughts and feelings surrounding relationship problems and impedes movement towards resolution (Diamond, p. 199). Both avoidance and demand/withdrawal communication are correlated with lower relationship satisfaction (Bodenmann, p. 354).

In determining whether mutual constructive communication between parents is more effective than mutual avoidance, for their well-being, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. The literature suggests that mutual constructive communication between parents is in the interest of the child. On the other hand, mutual avoidance and demand/withdrawal communication are correlated with lower relationship satisfaction and a lack of ability to move towards a resolution. The balance is clearly towards the desired outcomes of mutual constructive communication.

Taking into account the balance towards the desired outcomes, the effect on children’s well-being and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: For the parents and children, mutual constructive communication between parents is effective than mutual avoidance, for their well-being.

Generate income

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify the following interventions:
– Active measures [with the goal to generate more income]:
– Generate more working hours
– Self-employment
– Migration to areas with better employment opportunities
– Other [passive] measures:
– Applying for and receiving public assistance
– Remarrying
– Cutting back on expenditures

Financial resources are an important factor in the adaptations families make. Families save up in good times, and spend savings or borrow in bad. Families who do not have such savings, will not be able to do this (Yuen & Hofferth, p. 7). The analysis done by Yuen and Hofferth distinguishes between active measures (e.g. migration and increasing partner’s work effort) and other measures (e.g. relying on public assistance) (Yuen & Hofferth, p. 7 and 25). Families with substantial income and assets and those who live in low unemployment areas tend to take active measures, whereas families with little resources or in high unemployment areas are likely to rely on public assistance, remarriage or cutting back on expenditures (Yuen & Hofferth, p. 25). For purpose of the PICO question, we compare active (which generate more income) and passive measures, as the available literature makes, a distinction between these two strategies in overcoming post-divorce financial distress.

For families, is taking active measures with the goal of generating more income more effective than taking passive measures, for their financial well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis. For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: divorce, income, increase, decrease, financial, economic, income generating activities, financial adjustment, financial distress.

The main sources used for this particular subject are:
∙ Wei-Jun Jean Yueng and Sandra L. Hofferth, Family Adaptations to Income and Job Loss in the U.S.
(1998)
∙ Linda Scott, Catherine Dolan, Mary Johnstone-Lous, Kimberly Sugden, Maryalice Wu, Enterprise and Inequality: A Study of Avon in South Africa (2012)
∙ Caroline Dewilde and Wilfred Uunk, Remarriage as a Way to Overcome the Financial Consequences of Divorce- A Test of the Economic Need
∙ Hypothesis for European Women (2008)
∙ Naila Kabeer, Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal 1 (2005)

These sources are largely based on empirical studies. Evidence can be regarded as being low.

Recommendation

One of the indicators to measure gender equality and women’s empowerment is the increase of women’s share of wage employment (Kabeer, p. 1). Paid work has the potential to shift the balance of power within the family. It also leads to a long-term reduction in domestic violence, as well as an increase in women’s assets (Kabeer, p. 18). In some cases, women’s participation in wage employment has allowed them to have greater economic independence and even to escape abusive marriages (Kabeer, p. 19). Geographic migration has been viewed as a means of improving the allocation of human resources (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 5-6).

Seeking public assistance is stigmatizing and is seen as only a short term-option (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 24). When it comes to cutting back on expenditures, cutting food expenditures points to the possibility of deteriorating living conditions that may threaten the survival of family members. (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 24). Operating within a social setting unfriendly to women will be challenging due to, for example, pervasive violence. Women might encounter difficulties in running a door-to-door business in a country where no one opens the door out of fear. Moreover, women moving about to make sales, deliver products and meet teams are easy targets for such predators (Scott. et al., p. 562). Migration to an area of better employment opportunities may weaken the family’s support network and detract from children’s school progress (Yueng & Hofferth, p. 24).

In determining whether taking active measures with the goal of generating more income is more effective than taking passive measures, for the financial well-being of persons, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. An analysis of the outcomes shows a lack of consensus regarding which measure works. Research shows difficulties with using these strategies particularly due to national contexts. A suitable option is arguably exploring active measures because of efforts by divorced spouses to become self-supporting and self-sufficient.

Taking into account the balance towards the desired outcomes and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: Taking active measures to generate more income is more effective than taking passive measures for the well-being of families.

Problem-solving approach

Interventions and evidence

The common approach to resolving post-separation conflict is adversarial in nature (Menkel-Meadow 1999, p. 764-765). Needs of the parties are reframed in claims. The parties confront each other and use defenses and counterclaims. Between the parties, there is a debate about the validity of evidence and requirements of the law. The process concludes a judgment or settlement. The parties in conflict are presumed to focus on maximizing gains (Menkel- Meadow 1984, p. 764-765).

The problem-solving approach rather focuses on agreeing and finding solutions to the parties’ underlying needs and objectives (Menkel-Meadow 1999, p. 794 & Nolan-Haley, p. 246). The approach includes the joint search for solutions by reaching agreements and a decision in accordance with objective criteria if no agreement can be reached. Problem-solving courts are characterized by active judicial involvement, the explicit use of judicial authority to motivate individuals to accept needed services [such as mediation and adjudication] and to monitor their compliance and progress (Babb and Moran, p. 1060).

The problem-solving approach includes the following elements:
∙ An assessment of the needs and objectives of both parties;
∙ An identification of the most appropriate interventions for the parties;
∙ Mediation;
∙ Arbitration, adjudication or another form of decision-making where mediation is not successful;
∙ Monitoring compliance and progress.

For people separating, is taking a problem-solving approach more effective than an adversarial approach for their wellbeing?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis, Peace Palace Library, ResearchGate, Bloomberg Law and LexisNexis Academic. For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: mediation, litigation, fairness, process, outcome, agreement, divorce, family.

The main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are:
∙ Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Toward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving (1984)
∙ Carrie Menkel-Meadow The Lawyer as Problem Solver and Third-Party Neutral: Creativity and Nonpartisanship in Lawyering (1999)
∙ Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Lawyers, Non-Lawyers and Mediation: Rethinking the Professional Monopoly from a Problem-Solving Perspective (2002)
∙ Jane C. Murphy, Revitalizing the Adversary System in Family Law (2010)
∙ Linda D. Elrod, Reforming the System to Protect Children in High Conflict Custody Cases (2001)
∙ Robert E. Emery et al., Child Custody Mediation and Litigation: Custody, Contact, and Coparenting 12 Years After Initial Dispute Resolution (2001)
∙ Peter Salem, The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: The Beginning of the End for Mandatory Mediation? (2009)
∙ Barbara A. Babb and Judith D. Moran, Substance Abuse, Families and Unified Family Courts: the Creation of a Caring Justice System (1999)

Some findings used for this PICO question are based on empirical studies. However, most of the evidence is derived from expert opinions. This classifies the strength of evidence as low, according to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations.

Recommendation

A problem-solving approach with a simple inventory of needs, interests, wants and goals of all parties will help develop (fair) solutions (Menkel-Meadow 1999, p. 797).

The problem-solving approach moves away from a positional articulation of problems to an interest-based articulation of problems. This approach opens up greater possibilities for developing broadened options and solutions that directly respond more to the parties’ underlying needs (Nolan-Haley, p. 249).

A distinction in low, medium or high conflict cases should be made, particularly in regard to custody cases. This way, appropriate time tracks can be created for different cases depending on complexity, need for services, and other factors (Elrod, p. 522). ‘Low conflict’ couples can avoid adversarial procedures.

In high conflict cases, couples should have access to mediation and arbitration [or another form of decision-making]. During this process, the parties attempt mediation. If they cannot reach an agreement, then a decision can be made [by a neutral third party] on their behalf (Elrod, p. 522). This way, fast solutions can be found to problematic matters where mediation is not effective.

In all cases, parenting plans should be monitored by a neutral third party, such as a therapist or mediator (Elrod, p. 533). These parenting plans should take into account the developmental needs of children (Elrod, p. 529).

A monitoring system of a final parenting plan is expensive and time-consuming (Elrod, p. 529). Problem-solving skills require an ability to identify and analyse underlying needs, expand resources, generate options, and help clients arrive at solutions that are truly responsive to their needs (Nolan-Haley, p. 249). Taking the problem-solving approach requires investment and training.

Adversarial procedures in separation cases have been criticised for being expensive, time-consuming and divisive (Emery, p. 323). The adversarial system cuts all parties off from useful information such as facts, needs, interests, preferences and values. This can limit access to the crucial information that motivates people to resolve disputes (Menkel-Meadow 1999, p. 789).

The adversarial system may exacerbate negative behaviours of parents who possess the financial resources for extended litigation and who believe the court will eventually prove them right (Elrod, p. 511). According to social science research, children’s well-being following parental breakup depends on their parents’ (conflict) behaviour during and after the separation process. An adversarial approach creates more conflict (Elrod, p. 500), resulting in negative effects on children’s wellbeing.

Furthermore, in the context of custody issues, the adversarial system has proven to be poorly equipped to handle the complexities of interpersonal relations. It drives parents to find fault rather than cooperate (Elrod, p. 501). Accordingly, research shows that the adversarial approach is ill-suited to resolve disputes involving children (C. Murphy, p. 894).

In determining whether taking a problem-solving approach is better than an adversarial approach for the well-being of parents and children during a separation process, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.

Evidence suggests that taking the problem-solving approach helps to develop fair solutions, and opens greater possibilities to establish the parties’ underlying needs. On the other hand, investment and training might be needed.

Taking the adversarial approach might lead to more conflict behaviour and subsequently to negative effects on children’s well-being.

Accordingly, taking the problem-solving approach is recommended.

Taking into account the strength of evidence and the balance towards the desirable outcomes of the problem-solving approach, the following recommendation can be made: For people separating, the problem-solving approach is better than the adversarial approach for their well-being.

Live in safe homes

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature we were able to identify the following interventions for decisions concerning short-term housing arrangements post-separation: Single person/parent household Extended household

The composition of an ‘extended household’ includes both the ‘nuclear family’ and people outside the nuclear family (Abalos, p. 850). ‘Single person household’ refers to a living arrangement where one individual head their own household. ‘Single parent household’ refers to a living arrangement were one parent lives with a child or children.

Research shows that people are generally not inclined to move unless there is a compelling reason to do so, such as separation (Mulder et al, p. 154). Living arrangements are highly associated with children’s well-being (Abalos, p. 845). For the purpose of this PICO question, we compare living in a single person or single parent household with living in an extended household.

For separated or separated individuals, is moving into an extended household more effective than moving into a single person/parent household for their well being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis. For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: separation, divorce, housing arrangements, living arrangements, singleparent families.

The main sources of evidence used for this particular subject are∙ C.H. Mulder, B. ten Hengel, J. Latten & M. Das, Relative Resources and Moving from the Joint Home Around Divorce (2011)
∙ K. Gram-Hanssen & C. Bech-Danielsen, Home Dissolution: What Happens After Separation? (2008)
∙ P. Feijten, Union Dissolution, Unemployment and Moving Out of Homeownership (2005)
∙ Jeofrey B. Abalos, Living Arrangements of the Divorced and Separated in the Philippines (2011)
∙ P.R. Amato & B. Keith, Parental and Adult Well Being: A Meta-Analysis (1991)
∙ C.H. Mulder, Family Dynamics and Housing Conceptual Issues and Empirical findings (2013)
∙ J. Mikolai & H. Kulu, Divorce, Separation and Housing Changes: A Multiprocess Analysis of Longitudinal Data from England and Wales (2018)
∙ P. Feijten & M. van Ham, Residential Mobility and Migration of Divorced and Separated (2007)

The article by Mulder et. al. investigates the influence of relative resources on who moves out of the marital home in light of separation: the man, the woman or both. Gram-Hanssen and Bech-Danielsen’s study uses a quantitative and qualitative approach to see how the housing situation of different types of people was affected by the separation. Feijten investigates immediate and the lagged effects of union dissolution and unemployment on homeownership. Abalos examined living arrangements of separated people using data from the Philippines’ 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Mikolai and Kulu investigated the effect of marital and non-marital separation on individual’s residential and housing trajectories using data from the British Household Panel Survey. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘low’.

Recommendation

Research shows that the extended household may be more practical than single or single-parent households because it may provide better economic security due to the pooling of resources (Abalos, p. 855). The following examples may be relevant:

Separated persons with low education, who live in an extended household, with the economic support of the adult members, are able to complete their education. In contrast, those living in single or single parent households and providing for their own dependents, may be unable to pursue higher education (Abalos, p. 856).

Women with children can also depend on other members of the extended household for childcare, especially if she is employed, thus avoiding additional childcare costs (Abalos, p. 855). Living in an extended family, therefore, is seen as more financially secure than living alone.

Moreover, where a family is characterised by strong family solidarity and kinship ties, those who have experienced a marital break up may turn to their extended family for support. This is especially true for a woman whose marriage was dissolved at a young age. They are less likely to be financially secure, less likely to have children (and even if they do, these children are more likely to be in their childhood years in need of more care), and are more likely to have their either or both parents still alive. Thus, returning to the parental household far outweighs the cost of living alone or heading their own single parent family (Abalos, p. 846-847).

Individuals who live in a single person household feel more pressure to participate in labour than those in an extended household. The latter do not feel the same kind of pressure because of the economic security afforded to them by their extended family (Abalos, p. 857). People living in extended households might not be inclined to work. Research shows that adolescents in single parent families may be pressured to leave school early to seek employment. Low educational achievement is likely to be associated with low occupational attainment, unemployment, poverty, and welfare dependency later in life (Amato & B. Keith p. 44).

In determining whether living in an extended household after separation is more effective than in a single household, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.

The evidence shows that living in an extended household provides more economic and social security than living in a single household, particularly for people of low-income. On the other hand, it does not innately incentivise people to seek employment. Nevertheless, the desirable outcomes outweigh the undesirable outcomes.

Accordingly, living in an extended household is more effective than living in a single household.

Taking into account the clear balance towards the desired outcomes, and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: Extended household arrangements are more effective than single parent/person household arrangements.

Providing non permanent spousal maintenance

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify the following interventions for spousal maintenance:
∙ Non-permanent spousal maintenance:
Rehabilitative spousal maintenance
Limited duration spousal maintenance
∙ Permanent spousal maintenance

Rehabilitative spousal maintenance provides a former spouse with support for a limited period of time to allow for the development of the skills, training, or education necessary for self-support. It presupposes the existence of a future capacity for self-support (Greene, p. 9) and is designed to improve the recipient’s employment prospects (Shehan et al, p. 310).

Limited duration spousal maintenance (also known as transitional support) is periodic maintenance or terminable maintenance; an amount regularly paid to a recipient for a fixed period. This form of maintenance is meant as a financial buffer to help the former spouse become self-supporting during the period of transition from married life. If the recipient is not self-supporting and cannot become so, limited duration alimony may not be awarded. Limited duration spousal maintenance is not modifiable and cannot be discontinued even if the recipient remarries within the repayment period (Shehan et al, p. 310).

Permanent spousal maintenance is awarded as the primary source of support for the recipient (Greene, p. 9). A modification is permitted upon showing a change in the circumstances of the parties. If a spouse who has been awarded permanent alimony subsequently becomes self-sufficient, termination or reduction of the permanent alimony award normally follows (Greene, p. 14). The duration of a permanent award is generally until the death or remarriage of the recipient. Permanent spousal maintenance is most likely to be provided when the recipient is aged, infirm, or unable to be self-supporting. The amount of the award is based on the level of financial need and the standard of living enjoyed in the marriage (Shehan et al, p.310).

For the purpose of this PICO question, we compare permanent spousal maintenance with the two other forms of nonpermanent spousal maintenance: Limited and rehabilitative spousal maintenance. Limited and rehabilitative spousal maintenance both focus on self-sufficiency, while permanent spousal maintenance does not.

For separated spouses, is non-permanent spousal maintenance more effective than permanent spousal maintenance post-separation?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR, Taylor & Francis, Sabinet, LexisNexis. For this PICO question, keywords/phrases used in the search strategy are: alimony, spousal maintenance, spousal support, divorce, awarding of alimony, income measures.

The main sources used for this particular subject are:
∙ Jean van Houtte and Corinne de Vocht, The Obligation to Provide Maintenance between Divorced Husband and Wife in Belgium (1982)
∙ Cynthia L. Greene, Alimony is Not Forever (1988)
∙ Constance. L. Shehan, Alimony: An Anomaly in Family Social Science (2002)
∙ Twila B. Larkin, Guidelines for Alimony: The New Mexico Experiment (2004)

These sources include observational and empirical studies. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘moderate’.

Recommendation

Research shows that efforts by the supported spouse to remain or become self-supporting and independent of the former spouse are favoured. Limited and rehabilitative maintenance focus on the recipient parent becoming selfsufficient (Greene, p. 11; 22-23; Shehan et al, p. 310).

Rehabilitative spousal maintenance is needed particularly for women who entered marriage under a very different set of rules, for example where they abandoned their own jobs and careers to the expected, traditional roles of mother and wife. In those years in which they would have developed job skills and careers. Such women were unable to attain or incapable of attaining self-sufficiency (as cited in Greene, p 13). Rehabilitative spousal maintenance can assist them to develop their own lives.

a) where the recipient abandoned her job and career to fulfill the expected, traditional roles of a mother, wife and hostess… ( as cited in Greene, p. 13)

b) where there are minor children under the age of five and it is not practical for the recipient to generate income in excess of work-related child-care costs, or both parties are committed to one parent remaining home with the child(ren) (Larkin, p. 53).

Permanent spousal maintenance presumes that the recipient cannot become self-sufficient (Greene, p. 9). However, some recipients might come to rely on these payments rather than taking the initiative to obtain additional training or education, a job or resume a career (Shehan et al, p. 309).

Permanent payment might keep alive the hostility. Maintenance could alter the post-marital distribution of power between spouses. For example, when bitterness grows between the separated litigants, one party often seeks to have the other punished for their failure to pay maintenance (Shehan et al, p. 309).

In determining whether non-permanent spousal maintenance is more effective than permanent spousal maintenance post-separation, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. Permanent spousal maintenance is appropriate only where the recipient is unemployable. Rehabilitative or limited duration spousal maintenance is appropriate in the event of a need for maintenance and should be awarded until the recipient becomes self-sufficient, implicitly requiring the former spouse to make reasonable efforts to become selfsufficient. Accordingly, non-permanent spousal maintenance is more effective than permanent spousal maintenance.

Taking into account the balance of outcomes, including, the effect on former spouses’ well-being (in particular selfsufficiency) and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: Non-permanent spousal maintenance is more effective than permanent spousal maintenance.

Share the costs of upbringing

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify three interventions, these being:
∙ Formal and informal child support provided by non residential parent
∙ Only formal child support provided by non-residential parent
∙ No child support

Formal child support payments are received through a welfare office (Greene and Moore, p. 159). These are payments agreed upon beforehand.

Informal child support includes money given directly to the residential parent, groceries, clothes or other items (Greene and Moore, p. 159). These payments are not agreed upon beforehand.

For the purpose of this PICO question we compare providing formal and informal support with only providing formal child support by the non-residential parent. Research shows that nonresident fathers provide a considerable amount of in-kind support instead of cash support (Greene & Moore, p. 174).

With regards to the third intervention (i.e. not paying child support), research shows that nonresidential fathers’ support not only increase children’s standard of living, but also improve children’s health, educational attainment and general well-being (Amato & Gilbert, p. 557-558; Garasky et al, p. 365). Providing child support would therefore be clearly desirable over not providing for child support. For this reason we do not test this intervention.

For parents deciding on the costs for their children’s upbringing, is formal and informal child support provided by the non-resident parent more effective than the non-resident parent providing only formal support for their children’s well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis, Peace Palace Library. For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: child, maintenance, support, child-care, formula, support, child support, child maintenance, in-kind payments

The main sources used for this particular subject are:
∙ Maureen R. Waller & Robert Plotnick, Effective Child Support Policy for Low-Income Families:
Evidence from Street Level Research (2001)
∙ Paul R. Amato & Joan G. Gilbert, Nonresident Fathers and Children’s Well-being: A Meta-Analysis (1999)
∙ Lenna Nepomnyaschy, Child Support and Father-Child Contact: Testing Reciprocal Pathways (2007)
∙ Angela Greene & Kristin Moore, Nonresident Father Involvement and Child Well-Being Among
Young Children in Families on Welfare (2000)
∙ Steven Garasky et al, Toward a Fuller Understanding of Nonresident Father Involvement: An Examination of Child Support, In-Kind Support, and Visitation (2009)

Waller and Plotnick analyse findings from qualitative studies to understand why the child support system is ineffective for many low-income families. Amato and Gilbert use meta-analytical methods to explain how dimensions of the non-resident father-child relationship are linked with children’s well-being. Nepomnyaschy’s study examines the relationship between child support payments and fathers’ contact with their nonmarital children. Greene and Moore use descriptive data to research factors that predict father involvement among non-resident fathers of young children who receive welfare and whether nonresident father involvement is associated with better outcomes for these children. Garasky et al investigate the relationships among three aspects of father involvement namely, child support, in-kind support and visitation. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘moderate’.

Recommendation

Mothers who receive formal and informal support from fathers report fewer behavioral problems and higher levels of social and emotional adjustment for their children (Greene and Moore, p. 175).

Regarding the well-being of children, both formal and informal child support are positively associated with better ratings on the Personal Maturity Scale (an outcome variable used in this research, which focuses on the child’s emotional and behavioral development) (Greene and Moore, p. 175). Informal child support is associated with improvements in the child’s home environment (Greene and Moore, p. 176). Over time, informal support from the father may be associated
with improvements in cognitive assessment scores and academic achievements for children.

Fathers who pay child support may want to see their children more, in order to oversee the allocation of their
contributions (Nepomnyaschy p. 94). A stronger positive relationship exists between visitation and support provided by a nonresident father when that support is made informally to the child’s mother (Nepomnyaschy, p. 94). Child support seeks to ensure that parents who live apart from their children contribute to their financial support in order to achieve specific goals such as poverty and financial insecurity reduction among children and their custodial parents. Child support also seeks to affirm the widely held belief that parents are morally and socially obligated to support their children (Waller & Plotnick, p. 89).

Child support is thought to have symbolic meaning, representing the non-resident parent’s care and concern to the child; and this may improve the child(ren)’s well-being beyond the effects of raising the child’s standard of living, to a psychological contribution (Garasky et al, p. 365).

Mothers mention that conflict may arise when the father begins to pay child support and stop supporting them informally or doing the “extras” for their children (Waller & Plotnick, p. 101). Moreover, these conflicts can make already difficult parenting arrangements more hostile and may lead to their dissolution (Waller & Plotnick, p. 99).

After low-income parents become involved with the formal system and a support order is established, concerns about how the system enforces support orders arise. Mothers often perceive it as ineffective in enforcing their rights to support. Fathers become frustrated with the system’s insensitivity to their changeable economic circumstances and its use of criminal sanctions to enforce compliance. These perceived problems with the enforcement process are likely to contribute to poor parents’ reluctance to participate in the formal system in the first place (Waller & Plotnick, p. 101).

Punitive child support enforcement policies may drive fathers who are incapable of providing support to abandon their families altogether (Nepomnyaschy, p. 109).

To some fathers, formal child support represents a forced payment rather than an authentic expression of paternal love (Waller & Plotnick, p. 100). Some women agree with this assessment of child support, as both tainted and unreliable because it does not derive from an emotional bond (Waller & Plotnick, p. 100-101).

In determining whether providing formal and informal support by the non-residential parent is more effective than providing only formal child support by the non-residential parent, for the financial well-being of persons the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered.

Although some parents sometimes did not comply with child support regulations, these studies suggest that they strongly endorse the belief that fathers have an obligation to support their biological children and be involved in their lives. All studies indicate that communities recognise in-kind contributions such as diapers, toys, clothing and shoes as valid expressions of this paternal obligation (Waller & Plotnick, p. 100).

In sum, the effect on well-being of the desirable outcomes are more far-reaching than the effects on wellbeing of undesirable outcomes.

Taking into account the clear balance towards the desired outcomes, and the strength of the evidence, we make the following recommendation: Receiving both formal and informal child support is more effective than receiving only formal child support.

Limit their children’s exposure to conflict

Interventions and evidence

During the orientation process of the available literature, we were able to identify one intervention, this being: limiting the exposure of children to severe parental conflicts.

For children, is actively limiting the exposure of children to severe parental conflicts more effective than not doing this for their well-being?

The databases used are: HeinOnline, Westlaw, Wiley Online Library, JSTOR and Taylor & Francis. For this PICO question, keywords used in the search strategy are: communication, parental conflict, separation, divorce, children.

The three main sources used for this particular subject are:
∙ Matthew R. Sanders, W. Kim Halford and Brett C. Behrens, Parental Divorce and Premarital Couple Communication (1999)
∙ Tamara D. Afifi, Tara McManus, Susan Hutchinson and Birgitta Baker, Inappropriate Parental Divorce Disclosures, the Factors that Prompt them, and their Impact on Parents’ and Adolescents’ Well-Being (2007)
∙ Paul Schrodt and Tamara D. Afifi, Communication Processes that Predict Young Adults’ Feelings of Being Caught and their Associations with Mental Health and Family Satisfaction (2007)

The article by Sanders, Halford and Behrens is based on a detailed observational analysis of couples’ interaction. The article by Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson and Baker bases its findings mostly on clinical and empirical evidence. The article by Schrodt and Afifi uses both empirical and meta-analysis to support its findings. According to the HiiL Methodology: Assessment of Evidence and Recommendations, the strength of this evidence is classified as ‘low’ to ‘moderate’.

Recommendation

Adaptive communication behaviours can be learned. Therefore, the problems that children face as a result of exposure to a parental conflict can be prevented (Schrodt, p. 62). In this regard, training children in cognitive and behavioural skills might be beneficial. If the training is extended to parents, they are able to become aware of how communication impacts others.

If children are to try and make sense of their parents’ disputes, then becoming privy to additional information relevant to such disputes and marital conflicts may increase their satisfaction and mental health by reducing the uncertainty and stress associated with making sense of it all (Schrodt, p. 223).

Children’s exposure to marital conflicts can place them in an uncomfortable position as mediators (Schrodt, p. 204). When parental disclosures produce role changes or make them feel caught between their parents, it may result in psychological and behavioural problems for adolescents (Afifi, McManus, p. 81). When parental separation is associated with exposure of children to severe parental conflict, this means children also get exposed to models of maladaptive conflict management behaviours (Sanders, p. 61). When children take over these interaction habits, then they are put at greater risk for relationship problems as adults (Sanders, p. 61).

In determining whether actively limiting the exposure of children to severe parental conflicts is more effective for their well-being than omitting this, the desirable and undesirable outcomes of both interventions must be considered. The literature suggests that exposure to marital conflicts has negative effects on children’s well-being. It can place them in the position of a mediator and it can make them feel caught between their parents. Moreover, exposure to a marital conflict can have negative consequences to the well-being of children in the long term.

On the other hand, children need to make sense of their parents’ marital conflict. Therefore, the balance between outcomes is not entirely clear.

Despite the unclear balance of outcomes in terms of children’s well-being, we make the following recommendation: For children, actively limiting the exposure of children to severe parental conflicts is more effective than not doing this for their well-being.

Contents:

Justice Dashboard

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

Contact us

The Hague Institute for
Innovation of Law
Tel: +31 70 762 0700
E-mail: info@hiil.org

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Instagram Youtube

Navigation

© 2024 HiiL
Privacy