Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Archive for the ‘Family’ Category

Rethinking Party Safety in Online Mediation

Dee Williams, January 19th, 2023

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to online mediation becoming far more common in family cases than it was previously. This shift from in-person to video mediation has both benefits and potential pitfalls when it comes to participant safety, as discussed in a recent article by Erin R. Archerd.

In her Winter 2022 Stetson Law Review article, “Online Mediation and the Opportunity to Rethink Safety in Mediation,” Archerd describes some of the security benefits and challenges of mediating online, recommends steps mediators can take to enhance party security in online mediation, and calls for a more expansive conception of safety for mediations in general.

Photo by Liza Summer via Pexels

Some observers argue that online mediation can be safer than mediating in person because of the physical distance between the parties. Archerd acknowledges this benefit, but also sees a downside. She notes that when mediating in person, a mediator can personally ensure that the room has safe exit routes for all parties in case of a confrontation and that the mediation is not observed or interrupted by an unauthorized party. Such assurances are more difficult online. Additionally, Archerd states that interacting via camera also entails the loss of some of the nonverbal cues that mediators might normally use to assess parties’ senses of safety. To make up for this, she suggests that — once screening for impediments has been completed and the mediator and parties decide to go forward with­ mediation — mediators hold private pre-mediation sessions with each party. During such a meeting, the mediator can go over the security of the parties’ mediation locations, make sure they will be in a safe and appropriately private environment during the mediation, and establish ways to communicate if the party is being watched or intimidated from off-screen. Mediators can do something similar on the day of mediation by holding a private session with each party prior to joint session to ask them to describe their space and ask whether they feel they can safely complete the mediation process.

Maintaining confidentiality in an online mediation also requires more work, since mediators are not able to monitor all aspects of the space in the same way. Archerd recommends that mediation agreements make it clear that unauthorized parties should not be present at the mediation. In addition, mediators should communicate with parties in advance about how to ensure privacy in their mediation locations. At the start of the mediation session, mediators should confirm with parties that they are not recording and that no unacknowledged parties are present. Another aspect of safety is the long-term well-being of participants: Mediators conducting mediations online need to be sure they are well connected to “wraparound services” such as domestic violence or special education resources. Archerd notes that lack of access to in-person meetings can hamper feedback that would otherwise be received about the overall well-being of parties, and greater effort to connect parties to required services may be beneficial in online mediation environments.

New RSI Report Sheds Light on Family ODR for Thinly Resourced Parents, Courts and Communities

Susan M. Yates, October 26th, 2022

Do you have a project that you started before the pandemic that you had to put on the back burner in the face of many urgent tasks? I did, but not anymore! I am thrilled to say that RSI’s report, “Family Court Online Dispute Resolution for Thinly Resourced Parents, Courts and Communities: Impediment, Improvement or Impossible Dream?” is now available online.

RSI is very grateful to the JAMS Foundation, whose generous funding made this project possible. We are also thankful to many others who contributed to the project, who you can learn about in the report.

Why RSI Did this Project

Having worked with court mediation in its early years, in recent years I have been witnessing similar responses to court online dispute resolution (ODR). There are proponents who see ODR as a great way to make court systems more accessible, less expensive and quicker. However, some also have significant concerns about issues such as whether ODR will be fair and accessible, who will pay for ODR and what might be lost by relying on technology.

RSI wanted to sort out whether family ODR could improve access to justice for thinly resourced parents who were in court over child-related issues (e.g., parenting time and decision-making), which we know is an area of great need in many jurisdictions. We were especially interested in how family ODR might work in jurisdictions and communities that were also thinly resourced.

Structure of the Project

We created a framework for the project. It is a series of steps – each building on the previous steps – that walks through a process of considering what it would take for family ODR to be accessible, ethical, effective, feasible and sustainable.

To work our way through that framework, we:

  • Conducted research on the literature and the state of court ODR
  • Surveyed state alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and ODR leaders
  • Surveyed 37 national experts working in academia, ADR, court ADR, court administration, family law, funding, intimate partner violence, judging, legal aid, legal technology design, ODR, self-represented litigants and technology
  • Convened those 37 experts three times
  • Drew on RSI’s organizational experience

The data used in the report reflects the status of ODR in 2020. Because the project was already delayed by the pandemic, we decided not to continue to update the report as new programs were developed and new resources became available.

Tensions

Through the above work, we identified three tensions that must be resolved in order for family ODR to serve thinly resourced parents, courts and communities.

1. The desire to serve all parents is in tension with the limitations imposed by the thinly resourced environment explored in the project.

Courts have a responsibility to protect potentially vulnerable parents and ensure ODR is accessible and ethical. However, courts that are thinly resourced are unlikely to be able to provide the full range of services recommended by some experts to ensure ODR is accessible for all parents. The services include, for example, individualized education for each parent about their rights, personalized counseling for each parent about their best options, and one-on-one assistance while using ODR. Indeed, in our experience working with courts, it is likely that these thinly resourced courts would be looking for ways to reduce their costs by implementing ODR, not to increase costs because of a need for additional services to supplement ODR.

To address this tension, a safe tradeoff can be constructed by drawing on a long-established requirement of in-person family mediation. Prior to mediation, each parent must be screened individually to determine if a party has experienced intimate partner violence or other coercive behavior in the relationship that would make participation in a traditional mediation unwise. This need for screening is also true for family ODR.

This screening can be expanded to address the concerns specific to ODR, such as issues related to language, disability or access to the internet. The screener would assist the parents in finding ways to access ODR (e.g., how to involve a translator), would work with them to determine if mandatory participation in ODR is appropriate (e.g., in the case of an insurmountable barrier due to a serious illness or a violent relationship), and would help them access other suitable services when needed.

Screening some parents out of ODR will reduce the number of families that can benefit from ODR. However, it will also help to ensure that ODR is accessible and ethical for the parents who do participate.

2. There is a tension between the need for voluntary decision-making (to help make ODR ethical) and the need for participation (to help make ODR effective).

Neither the literature nor the gathered experts agree on whether mandatory or voluntary participation is inherently better. There is, however, a way to address this tension.

A safe tradeoff can be accomplished — as is sometimes the case with in-person family mediation — by requiring that parents who are not screened out of ODR try an initial ODR step. Because this comes after screening, it avoids requiring parents to use ODR if they are unable to participate in ODR or if they should not participate in ODR for any of a variety of reasons. It also increases the likelihood that a court ODR program will serve enough parents to make it effective by requiring that parents at least try ODR.

3. There is a tension between the cost of accessible, ethical, effective family court ODR and the ability of thinly resourced parents, courts and communities to pay for it.

The project pondered ways to resolve that tension, i.e., how to pay for quality court ODR. In the end, this tension could not be resolved. The project was unable to identify a feasible, sustainable path by which family court ODR could be provided nationwide to parents who need it via courts that cannot afford it.

Recommendations

The report resulted in nine recommendations.

1. Support family ODR
There is a need for family ODR despite the growth in family ODR and the availability of family ADR in some areas. There should be nationwide support for providing family ODR to thinly resourced parents, courts and communities.

2. Develop national standards for family court ODR
National standards for family court ODR should be developed and promoted. They should provide definitions; descriptions; guidance and, potentially, specific measurable criteria. The standards should articulate how to ensure family ODR is accessible, ethical and effective.

3. Consider how to assess whether family court ODR meets the standards
During the development of the standards, the question of how to assess whether court programs and vendors meet the standards should be addressed. For example, who would conduct the assessments? What would be the impact of any finding by the assessment?

4. Ensure every participant has a live conversation with a screener prior to ODR
There are situations in which some parents should not participate in ODR; therefore, every parent should engage in a live telephone or video conversation with a screener prior to using ODR. Together, they should explore whether: there was or is any intimate partner violence in the relationship; they have access to ODR; they are comfortable communicating in a language in which ODR is offered; they are comfortable with ODR technology; they are experiencing any mental illness or substance use issues that prevent them from participating in ODR; and they might need any accommodations as a result of disability.

5. Investigate the potential for a national program to conduct screenings
In many places across the country, parents are not routinely screened prior to family mediation. We see the same practice developing with family ODR. A national program is needed to offer screening that is affordable for thinly resourced parents and courts that cannot afford to pay screeners for ODR.

6. Require every parent who is not screened out of ODR to make an initial attempt to use ODR to identify areas of agreement with the other parent
Requiring parents to attempt to use ODR after screening will provide an ethical combination of screening parents out of, and mandating them into, ODR. It will encourage the maximum number of parents to try ODR, thereby increasing the opportunity for effectiveness, but not require parents who are unsuited to ODR to use it. Parents who do use ODR should not be required to reach agreement using it, but the experience of trying the initial step can also encourage parents to keep using ODR if they find it to be easy to use and helpful.

7. Provide guidance and model materials to courts developing ODR projects
Reliable, curated resources presented in an accessible format can help prevent courts from having to reinvent the ODR wheel. These resources could include, for example, guidance on how to determine what ODR processes and platforms to use, what standards to apply, how to select a vendor and what best practices are. These materials should also include model outreach and educational materials such as text for summonses, websites and communications with parents, as well as videos to which local court information could be added.

Courts also need assistance from experienced, knowledgeable experts to put those resources to work. Courts and communities with the least resources should be actively contacted, made aware of the resources, helped to assess whether there is a need for family ODR in their jurisdiction and, if there is a need, supported as they implement family ODR.

8. Enable courts to assess and improve their family ODR services
ODR platforms generally can provide regular statistical information on how ODR is functioning. Courts may need assistance determining what data they need, working with their vendor to obtain the data, and learning how to draw useful information for reports. Video mediation apps, such as Zoom, do not have built-in reporting mechanisms. Courts using video mediation will therefore need to devise other ways to collect critical data.

Courts also need to ensure parents are experiencing procedural justice when they participate in ODR. For courts using ODR platforms, this will likely require the insertion of surveys into the ODR system or the adaptation of surveys provided as part of the ODR platform. Courts using video mediation will need to survey parties about their mediation experience another way, e.g., by email or text.

Additionally, courts should participate in comprehensive program evaluations when possible. They should share results of these evaluations with other courts and with ODR providers to inform other ODR programs.

9. Investigate the potential for a national family court ODR provider
Although the project did not identify an entity that would be able to establish and sustain a national provider of family ODR, it is still possible that a resource-rich home for family ODR exists somewhere. Individuals and entities that are concerned with services to thinly resourced parents, courts and communities should explore whether there is a deep-pocketed funder who would commit to a multi-year national program.

Conclusion

This project investigated the study question, “How might family court online dispute resolution serve thinly resourced parents, courts and communities?” It found that family court ODR can be an impediment to access to justice if not provided in an appropriate manner. However, if it is provided in a manner that is accessible, ethical and effective, family court ODR can improve access to justice. Doing so will require standards for family court ODR, as well as resources to support the provision and evaluation of ODR. It will also necessitate comprehensive screening conversations with all parents prior to ODR, which will enable courts to require that all parents who are not screened out attempt at least an initial stage of ODR.

In the end, whether family ODR that is accessible, ethical, effective and feasible can be provided nationwide to parents who need it, despite limited family, court and community resources, remains an unanswered question and potentially an impossible dream. There is no clear path to determining how to sustain family court ODR services.

For Family Cases Involving Reports of Intimate Partner Violence, Shuttle and Videoconference Mediation Are Safe, Effective and Preferred by Parents

Jennifer Shack, March 1st, 2021

In a randomized controlled trial of family cases involving parents reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV), parents felt safer in and were more satisfied with shuttle and videoconference mediation than litigation. Importantly, they also indicated a preference of shuttle mediation over videoconference mediation. The study, conducted in Washington, DC, by Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, et al., is discussed in their article “Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Family Dispute Resolution: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Shuttle Mediation, Videoconferencing Mediation, and Litigation” (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, February 2021).

For the study, the researchers compared traditional litigation (n = 67 cases), the process used for all cases prior to the study, to shuttle mediation (n = 64 cases) and videoconference mediation (n= 65 cases), two approaches designed to protect parent safety. All parents referred to mediation by the court were first screened for IPV by specially trained Dispute Resolution Specialists (DRSs). Based on the screening, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the IPV reported by either or both parents was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. Cases were considered ineligible if: the case involved an open child abuse case or required other emergency interventions due to immediate danger; a parent lived too far away to participate in mediation in person, was deemed incompetent for mediation (e.g., acutely psychotic), was incarcerated or had a pending criminal case that would interfere; or the parents were in a same-sex relationship (pilot work revealed that there were too few same-sex cases for study purposes). Eligible parents were then randomly assigned to one of the three groups.

Mediators were trained in both shuttle mediation and video mediation and were assigned to both types of mediation. In both shuttle and videoconferencing mediation, parents were in different rooms in the same building but not near one another. In shuttle mediation, the mediator met in person with each parent separately and shuttled back and forth between rooms. The parents never saw or spoke directly to each other; all communications were through the mediator. Mediators assigned to shuttle mediation had no discretion to change the process format.

In videoconferencing mediation, the mediator was in a third room. Both parents and the mediator had access to a web camera and a computer screen and could see and hear each other on the screen. The mediators took regular breaks to check to see if each parent was comfortable with continuing with the three-way videoconference or if they wanted to move to either only audio (with other parent and mediator) or to communicate individually by video with the mediator. Mediators could make such changes if concerned about parent safety or emotional wellbeing, and parents could turn off the video equipment in their rooms at any point.

Mediator Assessment of the Approaches

In 41.3% of videoconferencing cases, mediators said they had private, in-person meetings with one or both parents. Mediators were most likely to hold such meetings to get forms (e.g., agreement to mediate) signed by the parents. In 71.7% of videoconferencing cases, mediators reported holding private, individual video meetings with one or both. Mediators reported that these meetings took place to help the mediation process (e.g., when a parent was behaving inappropriately) or to help parents process what was happening.

Immediately after mediation, the mediators were asked to complete a survey. They were asked their perceptions of the mediation in terms of their own and each party’s safety, their own and each party’s comfort, about their feelings of safety and comfort as well as their perception of each parent’s safety and comfort and their perception of the appropriateness of the process used for that case.  Mediators felt equally safe in both mediation approaches and perceived both as being similarly safe for mothers and fathers. They had similar perceptions about comfort in mediation, although they indicated feeling more comfortable and satisfied in shuttle mediation as compared to videoconferencing.

In 90% of cases, mediators believed shuttle mediation was appropriate for the case. This was significantly lower for videoconference mediation, which they said was appropriate in 78% of cases. Mediators also were significantly more likely to say that cases in videoconference mediations should have been handled with a different approach than that cases in shuttle mediation should have been handled differently (58% vs. 35%). Unsurprisingly, the mediators believed mediation had a greater effect on the parents’ ability to reach agreement when they conducted shuttle mediation than when they conducted videoconference mediation.

Parent Assessment of the Approaches

Parents were asked to assess the process in which they participated immediately after conclusion, including traditional litigation. Parents felt safer and less fearful in mediation than in traditional litigation, with no difference between the two mediation approaches. Parents in mediation were also more satisfied with the process than parents in traditional litigation, again with no difference between the two mediation approaches. Asked whether they believed the process used for their case was appropriate for their case, parents in mediation were significantly more likely to agree than were parents who participated in traditional litigation (87% vs. 76%). As with safety and satisfaction, parent perception of appropriateness of videoconferencing and shuttle mediation did not differ significantly. A similar pattern was found in their response to nine questions that assessd the positive effects of the process, such as feeling heard, able to express feelings efficiency, fairness, parents being held accountable.

Interestingly, there were no differences in parents’ satisfaction with the outcome or whether the process was helpful in resolving the issues among the three approaches. However, among those who reached a final resolution, parents who mediated using either approach were more likely to believe that the parents would follow the resolution terms than those who went through the traditional court process. There was no difference in parents’ responses between the two mediated approaches.

Outcomes and Time

Videoconferenced cases were half as likely to reach agreement as cases in shuttle mediation (43% vs. 22%). Through coding the content of the document that resolved case issues (i.e., the mediated agreement or the court order), the researchers found no statistically significant group differences in legal custody, physical custody, or parenting time arrangements and few differences in the likelihood of the document specifying a variety of arrangements (e.g., how to handle missed parenting time) or including safety provisions (e.g., supervised child exchanges).

However, there were statistically significant differences across groups for some specifications in the resolution document that might help decrease risk of violence. These differences indicate that mediation might result in more details regarding issues related to possible safety. Specifically, final documents for cases that had mediation were more likely than final documents for cases in traditional litigation to: address interparental communication at all (56 vs. 31%); agree to limit interparental disputes in the children’s presence (44% for mediation vs. 14%); include aspirational language about interparental communication (e.g., parents will try to have civil discussions; 38% vs. 8%); and agree to limit parents’ passing of messages to one another through the child (35% vs. 10%).

The researchers found that mediated cases also fared well in terms of the time needed to resolve a case. Cases that went through the traditional process took 3 times as long to reach final resolution as mediation cases.

Conclusion

The researchers conclude that “in cases with parents reporting concerning levels of IPV, when both parents are independently willing to mediate, mediation designed with strong safety protocols and carried out in a protected environment by well-trained staff may be an appropriate alternative to court.” (Taken from the article abstract.) They state that their findings do not definitively favor either shuttle or videoconference mediation. However, they note there are suggestions in the data that shuttle mediation might be preferable, as it was more likely to lead to agreement and mediators seemed to prefer it. They suggest that as COVID has put restrictions on in-person processes, future researchers could examine shuttle mediation via video technology.  In the meantime, “longer term outcomes and additional research are needed to more clearly understand if videoconferencing mediation, as structured in this study, is as safe and appropriate as shuttle mediation for cases reporting high levels of IPV.”

Survey of States Points to Widespread Unmet Need for Family ADR and ODR

Jennifer Shack, November 2nd, 2020

Resolution Systems Institute recently surveyed state court and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) administrators to gather information about the status of family mediation and family online dispute resolution in their states. The survey was part of a larger project, funded by the JAMS Foundation, we are doing that explores the potential for online dispute resolution (ODR) to help thinly-resourced parents to resolve their disputes, particularly in courts and communities that also have limited resources. The purpose of the survey was to understand the landscape of family ADR and ODR in the states, to learn about their efforts to provide ODR and, for those who had implemented ODR, to gain insights from their experience. 

The survey responses tell the story of the haves and have-nots. Some states have everything in hand when it comes to ADR, but about half of those who responded see an unmet need for both in-person and online services. They lack the funding and resources to make this happen. Their responses, too, indicate that they are interested in providing greater access to services.

Background

To prepare to distribute the survey, we conducted an exhaustive search for a contact person within the state court administrative office in each state. For those states for which we couldn’t find a contact person, we attempted to locate someone else within the state who would have knowledge of the statewide status of ADR and ODR. In the end, we sent surveys to 36 states and Washington, DC, of which 33 were to statewide court or ADR administrators. People from 24 states and Washington, DC, completed the survey. The responses are skewed toward those with statewide ADR offices, as 14 of the 23 states represented in the survey, as well as DC, have statewide ADR offices. This is 62% of the respondents. In contrast, of the total possible sample of states (and DC), only 39% (20 of 51) have ADR offices. 

For the survey, we defined ODR broadly as both video-conference mediation like Zoom and formal ODR platforms like Modria or Matterhorn. We also asked the respondents to concentrate on family dispute resolution for parents and courts with limited resources. That is, for parents who are not able to pay for dispute resolution services and courts that lack the resources to provide these services at no cost. 

Findings

All but two of the responding states have at least one staff person dedicated to ADR part-time. However, having an ADR office makes it more likely that the state court administrative office has full-time staff dedicated to ADR. Ten of the 15 states with an ADR office have at least one full-time person dedicated to ADR; only three of the ten states without an ADR office have full-time staff dedicated to ADR.

In the majority of represented states, the state provides some form of funding. However, these states range from minimally supporting to fully supporting ADR for court users. As with staffing, those states with ADR offices are more likely to provide some support for ADR programs. All but one of these fund ADR in some way, with ten providing ongoing funding. In contrast, only six of the ten states without ADR offices provide any funding for ADR in the courts. Of these, two provide ongoing support.

Face-to-face (or in-person) mediation is available in all states represented in the survey, although it is available statewide in only 63% of them. With the need to adjust to COVID-19, states have made the switch to video-conference mediation, with almost half providing this statewide. Text-based platforms are much less widely used. Only seven states have such a service, and none has made it available statewide. 

While face-to-face mediation is available in all states, more than half of the respondents said there was an unmet need for mediation in their state for parents with limited resources. Most of these said they lacked the funding and mediators necessary to meet that need. More than half said they required stakeholder buy-in and about half said leadership was needed. 

Almost all states have either implemented ODR statewide (in the form of video-conference mediation like Zoom) or are in the process of implementing it. The two most common reasons for pursuing ODR are to increase access to justice and to respond to the restrictions placed on in-person services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding appears to be the tricky spot for them, with eight respondents saying either they have yet to figure out funding for long-term maintenance or that individual courts were going to have to figure it out. 

Despite the increased availability of online services, almost half of the respondents said there was an unmet need for family ODR, with another third saying that they weren’t sure about the need for ODR in their state. Those who said there was an unmet need said that to meet that need their state needed funding, staff time and technical support, followed closely by leadership, stakeholder buy-in and mediators.  

Conclusion

While both in-person and video mediation are widely available in the responding states, more than half of the respondents see a need for greater resources to provide access to dispute resolution services to parents with limited resources. In all, most of the respondents held a positive view of ODR and its role in providing dispute resolution to parents and areas that are not well served by mediation. This is evident in the relatively widespread adoption of video-conference mediation.  

Parents See Conflict Reduction and Relationship Benefits from Mediation in Massachusetts

Jennifer Shack, March 2nd, 2020

Custody and parenting time mediation in Massachusetts is providing parents with multiple benefits while facilitating agreements. The most recent evaluation of the Parent Mediation Program in four counties, published by the Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration in 2019, found that 74% of mediations ended in an agreement. Additionally, parents reported multiple benefits beyond agreement, including a reduction in conflict, better conflict resolution skills, greater civility and better communication.

Services for the program are provided by community mediation centers, who conduct intake with the parents and are contracted to provide one session at no charge to the parents. If additional sessions are needed, the parents agree to pay the center on a sliding fee schedule. For the evaluation, mediators were asked to complete a report after each mediation session. Additionally, mediators asked parents to complete a survey after the last mediation session (150 parents across 80 cases did so) and center staff conducted phone interviews with 94 parents in 70 cases four to ten weeks after mediation ended.

During fiscal year 2019 (July 2018 – June 2019), 141 cases were referred to the centers. Almost 2/3 of these referrals were from the courts and the rest were from the community. During this same time period, 129 mediations were completed. In 74% of these, some form of agreement was reached: 30% full agreement, 34% partial agreement, 16% temporary agreement). In surveys, 93% of parents said they needed to devise a parenting plan, and 77% said that mediation either fully (43%) or partially (34%) helped them with that. In their reports, mediators indicated that mediation led to progress on the parenting plan in a similar percentage of cases, at 80%.

Parents and mediators were asked about other benefits experienced through mediation. In surveys, parents said that conflict between them and the other parent was diminished in about 2/3 of the mediations, an assessment with which mediators agreed – stating conflict was diminished in 69% of mediations. This benefit appeared to last for weeks after mediation for many parents, as 53% of those who were interviewed said that conflict continued to be reduced.

Similarly, more than 2/3 of surveyed parents reported greater civility between them and the other parent. Again, this benefit remained over time, with 50% saying that they and the other parent treated each other with greater civility. Most parents also said that their communication had improved, with 72% of those surveyed saying so and 54% of those interviewed weeks later agreeing.  It’s not surprising, then, that 70% of surveyed parents, and 54% of those who were interviewed, believed their skills for resolving conflict had improved.

While research has shown these benefits to be important for the emotional well-being of the children, this study points to another effect. Nearly half of surveyed parents said that less conflict with the other parent and 33% said better communication with the other parent would help them to financially support their children.

Reduced conflict and better communication did not necessarily lead to greater involvement with their children, however. Roughly half of those who were surveyed said that the other parent’s time with the children decreased and 20% said there was no difference. In interviews, parents continued to see little to no difference in the other parent’s involvement in their children’s lives. Nonetheless, 36% of custodial parents reported that the other parent’s involvement was greater than before.

The many benefits identified by parents were likely one reason they had a positive experience in mediation. Fully 97% said they would use mediation again and 99% would recommend it to others. Large majorities also thought the mediator was fair and unbiased (84%), listened well to their concerns (82%), identified relevant issues (80%) and helped generate ideas (78%).

The full study includes more background information on the level of conflict between the parents (29% had a high level), complications between the parents, demographics and the parents’ custodial status.