See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/15277513

High-Conflict Divorce

Article  in  The Future of Children · February 1994

DOI: 10.2307/1602483 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

128READS

529

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Alienation View project

Janet Johnston

San Jose State University

65 PUBLICATIONS   2,517 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Janet Johnston on 20 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

High-Conflict DivorceJanet R. Johnston

Abstract

This article reviews available research studies of high-conflict divorce and its effectson children. Interparental conflict after divorce (defined as verbal and physicalaggression, overt hostility, and distrust) and the primary parent’s emotional distressare jointly predictive of more problematic parent-child relationships and greaterchild emotional and behavioral maladjustment. As a group, children of high-conflictdivorce as defined above, especially boys, are two to four times more likely to beclinically disturbed in emotions and behavior compared with national norms. Court-ordered joint physical custody and frequent visitation arrangements in high-conflictdivorce tend to be associated with poorer child outcomes, especially for girls. Typesof intervention programs and social policy appropriate for these kinds of familiesare presented.

The intent of this paper is first to discuss the problem of identifyingimportant elements of conflict in divorce and, on the bases ofvarious definitions, to review the available research about their

incidence. The second aim is to examine the various factors that arebelieved to contribute to high-conflict divorce and to propose a theoreticalmodel explaining how these factors interrelate. Third, the focus will turnto what is known about the effects on children of interparental conflict, ingeneral, and what is known about the characteristics of children living inhigh-conflict divorce situations, in particular. Fourth, dispute resolutionprocedures and preventive and interventive programs, together with avail-able data on outcome effectiveness, will be outlined. Finally, implicationsof the current research base for social policy with respect to custody andaccess in cases of high-conflict divorce will be discussed.

Definitional ProblemsIn much early research, no conceptual dis-tinctions were made among types of con-flict. Spousal and interparental conflictwere simply equated with divorce, or withvarious measures of marital dissatisfaction,hostile attitudes, and physical aggression.This failure to distinguish among types ofconflict has confounded the debate aboutthe extent to which different kinds of di-vorce conflict are normal and functional,and the extent to which they signal pathol-ogy and are dysfunctional, especially forchildren.

Divorce conflict has at least three im-portant dimensions which should be con-sidered when assessing incidence and itseffects on children. First, conflict has adomain dimension, which can refer to dis-agreements over a series of divorce issuessuch as financial support, property divi-sion, custody, and access to the children,or to values and methods of child rearing.Second, conflict has a tactics dimension,which can refer to the manner in whichdivorcing couples informally try to resolvedisagreements either by avoiding eachother and the issues, or by verbal reason-ing, verbal aggression, physical coercion,

The Future of Children CHILDREN AND DIVORCE Vol. 4 • No. 1 – Spring 1994

Janet R. Johnston,Ph.D., is director of re-search at the Center forthe Family in Transi-tion, Corte Madera,CA, and consultingassociate professor inthe Department of Soci-ology, Stanford Uni-vers i ty , Palo Alto ,California.

166 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

and physical aggression; or it can refer toways in which divorce disputes are formallyresolved by the use of attorney negotia-tion, mediation, litigation, or arbitrationby a judge. Third, conflict has an attitudi-nal dimension, referring to the degree ofnegative emotional feeling or hostility di-rected by divorcing parties toward eachother, which may be covertly or overtlyexpressed.1 The problem of measuring in-cidence of conflict in divorce is compli-

in different cultures and ethnic groups?And are children differently impacted be-cause of age, gender, or temperament?

Finally, it is important to consider therelationship of the various dimensions ofconflict to one another, especially whendesigning programs and policies for di-vorcing families. One critical issue is theextent to which conflict in one domain(such as financial matters) spills over andactivates conflict in another domain

Postdecree divorce conflicts

(such as custody and access). Especiallyrelevant is the extent to which postmaritalhostility decreases the capacity for copar-

are sometimes considered to beental cooperation regarding the needs ofchildren.

intractable and indicative ofpreexisting individual and

cated further by the facts that a specificdomain of conflict may be perceived toexist by one party and not by the other,the parties may employ different conflicttactics (for example, one may avoid andthe other may litigate), and one party mayharbor greater hostility than is recipro-cated by the other.

family dysfunction.

Unfortunately, divorce research is stillin its infancy with respect to making manyof these conceptual distinctions and ad-dressing these questions. In particular,there are virtually no data available aboutcultural and gender differences in theparents of high-conflict divorce and abouteffects on children of different ages. Thereview of research which follows focusesonly on the domain of conflict over cus-tody, access, and child rearing after mari-tal separation.5

The duration and developing patternof each form of conflict are relevant toits characterization as either normal orpathological. For instance, higher levelsof most types of divorce conflict are ex-pectable and relatively common begin-ning at the time of marital separation andfiling for divorce and continuing until theissuance of the final decree—that is, en-compassing the time when the family is inthe process of fundamental reorganiza-tion from an intact to a two-householdfamily structure.2,3 Postdecree divorceconflicts, on the other hand, are some-times considered to be intractable andindicative of preexisting individual andfamily dysfunction.4

The question of which dimensionsand patterns of parental conflict are asso-ciated with poor child adjustment is ofparticular importance. For instance, are

In each study referenced, careful de-lineation is made of the type and meas-urement of conflict, and the nature of thesample is specified. The reader is cau-tioned against generalizing the findingsbeyond the specific dimension of conflictto nonrepresentative populations of di-vorcing families. The review includesonly empirical studies which either usedstandardized measures, had comparisongroups in the design, or made systematicpost hoc comparisons within the sample(that is, the review excludes an extensiveand informative literature based on clini-cal observations and theoretical specula-tion about the children and families ofdivorce, as well as articles motivated bysocial advocacy).

Incidence ofHigh-Conflict Divorce andAssociated Factors

children negatively affected by ongoinglegal battles, by parents’ inability to coor- Estimates of Incidence of

dinate their postdivorce child-rearing High-Conflict Divorce

practices, by living in a hostile family envi- Estimates of the incidence of highly con-ronment, or by witnessing overt verbal and flicted divorce ideally would be drawnphysical aggression? Is a mother’s conflict from large studies designed to be repre-behavior typically different from a fa- sentative of the full divorcing population.ther’s? Is conflict manifested differently Unfortunately, the studies in this category

167High-Conflict Divorce

provide scant information about the ratesof conflict of any kind. Tangentially, in anational study, Furstenberg and Nordnoted that the most prevalent pattern ofchild rearing two years after divorce is“parallel parenting,” in which the only at-tempt parents make to communicate orcoordinate their child-rearing practices isaround visitation arrangements.6

A recent California study by Maccobyand Mnookin of 1,124 families with1,875 children, recruited from divorcefilings in two counties and reinterviewedone year and two and one-half yearslater, has provided some estimates, albeitones that were not intended as incidencestatistics.7 With respect to the amount oflegal conflict over custody and visitationmatters, these researchers identified a“conflict pyramid,” showing that, in halfthe divorces, these issues were uncon-tested; in nearly one-third more cases,the issues, although contested, were set-tled without the help of the court or itsrelated services.

The remaining one-fifth of the familiesreached a settlement with respect to cus-tody and access using the more formalconflict-resolution procedures offered bythe court (11% in state-mandated media-tion sessions; 5% after a formal custodyevaluation; 2% during trial; and 1.5% de-cided by a judge). These “conflict pyra-mid” proportions are clearly linked asmuch to the objectives, principles, andprocedures of California’s (or the localcounty’s) family law system as they are toa couple’s propensity to dispute custody.The figures could be very different instates with different custody presump-tions and different formal stages of disputeresolution. Using a combined measure ofcourt data and parent interview data, theseresearchers estimated that 10% of familiesexperienced “substantial” legal conflict,and 15% experienced a greater degree of“intense” legal conflict. Interestingly, themost hostile couples were not necessarilythe couples locked in the most conten-tious legal battles.

Factors Associated withHigh-Conflict DivorceCoparenting Patterns

Three principal types of coparenting pat-terns were identified in the Maccoby andMnookin study, generated by the pres-ence or absence of discord (frequent ar-guments, undermining and sabotage ofeach other’s role as parents), and the

presence or absence of frequent attemptsto communicate and coordinate with re-spect to the children.7 Three to four yearsafter separation, there were three majorpatterns: high communication and lowdiscord, called cooperative coparenting,characterized 29% of the sample; lowcommunication and low discord, denotedas disengaged coparenting, involved 41% ofthe sample; and low communication andhigh discord, labeled conflicted coparenting,was a feature in 24% of the cases. Over thethree-year period, it was unlikely for con-flicted parents to become cooperative;most remained conflicted, and a smallgroup became disengaged. Moreover,those who had conflicted coparentingstyles were also more likely to be divorcingparents who had experienced substantial

The most prevalent pattern twoyears after divorce is “parallelparenting,” in which the onlyattempt parents make to commu-nicate is around visitationarrangements.

or intense legal conflict and who weremore hostile to one another, especiallymothers. It is important to emphasize,however, that these groups (those withhigh legal conflict, conflicted coparent-ing, and hostile attitudes) did not com-pletely overlap, confirming that thesedimensions of conflict are not identical; infact, they may be only weakly related toone another.

In sum, using different measures (le-gal conflict, hostility, and conflicted co-parenting), Maccoby and Mnookin’s dataindicated that one quarter of divorceswere highly conflicted at an average ofthree and one-half years after the separa-tion, by which time almost all couples hadobtained their final decree.7 It is interest-ing that these estimates are not greatlydisparate from smaller nonrepresenta-tive samples. Two earlier studies—one byWallerstein and Kelly of 60 families re-ferred for counseling and one by Ahronsof 54 couples obtained from divorcefilings—concurred that almost one-thirdof families remained very hostile and inconflict over child-rearing matters threeto five years after separation.8,9

168 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

Families with Young and/or ManyChildrenWhat other factors are associated withhigh-conflict divorce? Again, the 1992Maccoby and Mnookin study providesthe best comparative data.7 No socioeco-nomic, income, or ethnic differences werefound to distinguish divorces involvinghigh legal conflict and conflicted copar-enting styles from those with low indi-cators of conflict. Moreover, conflicted co-parenting was just as likely to be experi-enced by children living in dual residencesas by those who resided solely with eithermother or father. Families with very youngchildren were more likely to be highlyconflicted both legally and in terms ofday-to-day parenting. Larger families weresomewhat more likely to have coparentingconflict than those with an only child.These findings suggest that the need tocooperate closely, especially in the care ofvery young children and in coordinatingthe separate needs of multiple children,increases the strain on the coparentingrelationship.

Concern About Ex-Partner’sParenting PracticesMost notable, however, are the findingsby these same researchers that pervasivedistrust about the other parent’s ability tocare for their child adequately and dis-crepant perceptions about parentingpractices generally typify the couples whoare likely to be highly disputatious both

Pervasive distrust about the other parent’sability to care for their child adequately,and discrepant perceptions about parent-ing practices, generally typify the coupleswho are likely to be highly disputatiousboth inside and outside the court.

inside and outside the court.7 These ob-servations are supported by a recent Cali-fornia statewide study by Depner and hercolleagues of 1,669 mediation sessionsconducted in family courts, a samplewhich included 93% of all disputes re-garding custody and access mediated dur-ing a two-week period.10 (California lawrequires mediation in any case where par-ents are disputing custody and visitationmatters.) Within these sessions, serious

multiple overlapping concerns about theex-partner’s parenting practices wereraised by separating and divorced indi-viduals: these included allegations ofchild neglect (38%), child physical abuse(18%), child sexual abuse (8%), andchild stealing (6%). In addition, graveconcerns were raised about exposing thechild to the other parent because of his orher substance abuse (36%) or criminalactivity (7%). It is not known if these alle-gations could have been substantiated, orif they mostly signified each party’s nega-tive perceptions, hostility, and distrust ofthe other.

It is commonly believed by family courtcounselors, however, that these allega-tions of neglect and abuse often do notmeet the criteria for mandatory reporting.In fact, court counselors generally con-tend that, when such investigations areundertaken by child protective services,the allegations are frequently dismissed byoverworked staff as being either indicatorsof interparental spite, impossible to prove,or insufficiently serious to require stateintervention.

Depner and colleagues found that, ina startling 65% of families, domestic vio-lence was alleged by one or both parentswithin the mediation session.10 Two smallstudies of high-conflict divorcing families,by Johnston and Campbell (n = 80) andby Johnston (n = 60), confirm this highlevel of domestic violence.11,12 Both sam-ples were drawn from family court refer-rals for counseling that were made eitherbecause mandatory mediation in courthad failed or because parents continueddisputing over the care of their children,at times violently, despite a legal settle-ment. Physical aggression had occurredbetween 75% and 70% of the parents, inthe first and second studies, respectively,during the past year, even though thecouples had been separated, on the aver-age, 30 months and 42 months. In 25% ofthe first sample and 20% of the second,the aggression was termed moderate andinvolved slapping, hitting, kicking, or biting.In 35% of the first sample and 48% of thesecond, it was denoted as severe and in-volved battering and threatening to useor using a weapon.

In a comparison sample of 60 casesdrawn from a more general sample of di-vorce filings, where the couple had beenseparated more than two years, physicalaggression was 36 times lower than in the

High-Conflict Divorce

court-referred samples.13 Taken all to-gether, these studies suggest that, in di-vorces marked by ongoing disputes overthe custody and care of children, bothinside and outside the court, there is oftena history of domestic violence in the fam-ily and a likelihood that the violence willcontinue after the separation.

Emotional Dysfunction andCharacterological Disturbance

The extent of emotional dysfunction andcharacterological disturbance in indi-viduals involved in high-conflict divorcehas seldom been studied. Early clinicalobservations suggest that this group ismore likely to have severe psychopathol-ogy, personality disorders, and substanceabuse problems.14-17

Using ratings from the third edition ofthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders (DSM-III), two-thirds ofthe 160 parents in the first clinical study ofhigh-conflict divorce described abovewere diagnosed as having personality dis-orders and one-fourth as having traits ofsame.11 Only 2% were diagnosed as psy-chotic. One-fourth had substance abuseproblems. In the second clinical study of120 parents, a standardized self-reportmeasure of emotional symptomatology,the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), wasused, and the results indicated that thissample fell midway between a normalpopulation and a psychiatric population indegree of disturbance.12,18 The use ofdrugs and alcohol in this sample did notdiffer from that in the general population.

In 1989, Schaefer reported on a four-year follow-up study of 83 custodial par-ents who had contested and won custody(half were mothers, and half were fa-thers) and noted that their scores on thesame standardized measure (BSI) in-dicated a poorer clinical picture thannational norms.19 The critical questionraised by each of these studies is, how-ever, whether the manifestations ofpsychopathology represented ongoingpersonality and emotional disorders, orwhether they were expectable reactionsto severe stressors that included the di-vorce and legal disputes. For instance, itis difficult to determine whether theparanoia felt by a parent who is beingaccused by an ex-mate is unreasonablewhen that person is being evaluated in acourt process to determine who is thebetter parent.

169

A Theoretical ModelPredicting High-ConflictDivorceCurrently, there are no adequate studiesthat attempt to critically evaluate thevarious factors which are hypothesized tocreate and maintain highly conflictualpostdivorce relationships between par-ents over the custody and care of theirchildren. The theoretical explanatorymodel that is proposed here, however, is acomplex, interactive, and reciprocal one,as diagrammed in Figure 1 and illustratedin the accompanying inset (see Box 1).11

At the individual level, separation-engendered conflicts (the humiliation in-herent in rejection, the grief associatedwith loss, and the overall helplessness inresponse to assaultive life changes) inter-act with vulnerabilities in the character

In divorces marked by ongoing disputesover the custody and care of children, bothinside and outside the court, there is oftena history of domestic violence in thefamily and a likelihood that the violencewill continue after the separation.

structure of some divorcing individuals,making them especially prone to unre-solved hostility and ongoing disputes. Atthe interactional level, a combination ofthe destructive spousal dynamics that area function of these intrapsychic conflicts,the history of the prior marital relation-ship, and the legacy of an ambivalent ortraumatic separation experience causesthe parties to construct negative, polar-ized views of each other. Consequently,these parents continue to be highly dis-trustful of each other and are convincedthat they are fighting to protect the chil-dren from the perceived negative effectsof each other’s parenting.

In addition, there are realistic con-cerns about parenting capacity in indivi-duals whose functioning and judgmentare compromised by their own emotionaldistress and the continual criticism andundermining of their parenting by theex-spouse. The dysfunctional family rela-tionships that are a product of these in-trapsychic and interparental conflicts,

Figure 1

A Model of Individual, lnteractional and External Factors Predicting High-Conflict Divorce and Custody Disputes

Preseparation SeparationFactors Factors

PostseparationFactors

Individual LevelNature of Child(gender, age, temperament)

Prior PsychologicalAdjustment ofDivorcing Parent

Interactional LevelHistory of Courtshipand Marital Conflict

Prior Parent-ChildRelationships

External LevelDemographic Factors(income discrepancy andcultural differences betweenparents; family composition)

Source: Johnston, J.R., and Campbell, L.E.G. Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution of family conflict. New York: Free Press, 1988.

High-Conflict Divorce 171

especially disturbances in parent-child re-lationships, can result in emotional andbehavioral symptomatology in children(particularly in vulnerable younger chil-dren and boys). This, in turn, fuels theinterparental dispute. At the external so-cial level, these disputes can be both pro-voked and maintained by socioeconomicand cultural stressors and by coalitionsformed with significant others: extendedkin, new partners, and mental health andlegal professionals. The traditional adver-sarial process in the courts is particularlyfertile ground for the polarization ofperceptions and for the hostility andcombative stance which are hallmarks ofthis group.

Children’s Adjustment toDivorce-Related ConflictEffects of Parental Conflict onChildrenThe studies reviewed in this section areconcerned with the general relationshipbetween parental conflict and child func-tioning in the broader population of di-vorcing families. Here, we are interested inunderstanding under what conditionschildren are affected by interparental con-flict, and to what extent and in what waysthey are disadvantaged. These are crucialquestions with social policy implications.An extensive literature has been generatedduring the past two decades about theeffects of interparental conflict on chil-dren, mostly within intact but also withindivorcing families (see reviews by Emery;Grych and Fincham; Depner, Leino, andChun).20-22 A common shortcoming ofthese numerous studies is that, with fewexceptions (for example, Cherlin and col-leagues) they have not looked at the long-term outcomes of living with interparentalconflict, nor have they looked at how con-flict can interfere with the normal devel-opmental course of children.23

Most early studies did not discriminateamong conflict domain, tactics, and hos-tility (for example, Rutter).24 More re-cently, however, there have been attemptsto compare the effects on children of ex-posure to domestic violence with those ofliving in highly conflictual but nonviolenthomes. Further distinctions are now beingmade about the effects on children ofwitnessing violence compared with beingdirectly abused (see review by Jaffe, Wolfe,and Wilson).25 The consistent conclusionsof these reviews indicate that interparental

Case Illustration

Alan (11 years) is the only child ofbitterly disputing parents whoseparated suddenly three yearsago and who have been in con-flict over custody and visitationever since. Both parents are voca-tionally successful but are eco-nomically stressed by the divorce.Both feel humiliated by the per-ceived rejection inherent in thefailed marriage and especially bythe counterattacks in the custodylitigation that has followed.

The mother is overtly ragefuland vengeful; she has physicallyattacked the father on occasion.She has a focused paranoid be-lief that her ex-husband is out todestroy her and her child. In turn,the father is smug, obsessivelycontrolling and financially with-holding. He uses his ex-wife’s dis-tressed behavior to thoroughlydenigrate her parenting, in care-fully written documentation sub-mitted to the court. The motheralso claims that Alan’s visits to hisfather are negatively affectingthe boy and should be reducedor eliminated.

Although Alan is not directlyasked to take sides in the fight, heis presented with two starkly con-trasting realities from parents bothof whom love him. Likewise, he isattached to them both; he haspainful loyalty conflicts and fearslosing each of his parents.

In accord with his father’s ex-pectations of him, in his father’shome Alan is overly bright, com-petent, and entertaining. WhenAlan returns to his mother’s home,he regresses to a dependent, de-manding, and irritable child whohas many irrational fears andpanic attacks. Somatic symptomsinclude tiredness, stomachaches,and digestive problems, whichperiodically keep him from at-tending school. He is withdrawnsocially and engages in muchsolitary play with his collection oftoy soldiers.

It is perhaps not surprising thatthese parents are disputing incourt as to whether the boy is inneed of therapy.

Box 1

172 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

hostility and physical aggression are mod-erately associated with more behavioralproblems, emotional difficulties, and re-duced social competence in children,compared with nonconflictual families.Where gender differences have been in-vestigated, boys tend to show more overtbehavioral disturbance and girls tend tohave more covert emotional disturbance.These findings indicate that, in general,children who are exposed to physicalaggression between parents are moresymptomatic than those who experiencenonviolent interparental discord and thatthis symptomatology is even more pro-nounced in children who have been di-rectly abused.

It is important to note that, whilechildren from hostile and aggressivefamilies, as a group, have more adjust-ment problems than normally expected,the range of individual outcomes isbroad. Some children do very well de-spite these adverse environments; othersappear to be reactive and negatively af-fected. What makes for these differences?In studies of divorced families, it hasbeen found that interparental hostilityand aggression mostly have indirect ef-fects on children, mediated by the qual-ity of the parent-child relationship, with

While children from hostile and aggres-sive families, as a group, have more ad-justment problems than normally expected,the range of individual outcomes is broad.

the child’s relationship to the motherbeing more predictive of child adjust-ment than is the relationship with thefather.7,26,27 This finding implies that agood parent-child relationship can buff-er children from interparental conflict.In addition, some characteristics of theindividual child (for example, a moreadaptable temperament, higher intelli-gence, and better coping skills) are indi-cators of more resilience. The problemis, however, that conflict between spousestends to erode a couple’s capacity to co-operate in the care and guidance ofchildren. As a consequence of dividedparental authority and lack of respectgiven to one another, parenting tends tobecome more problematic: discipline ismore coercive, and expectations are

more inconsistent, all of which are pre-dictive of more negative and distantparent-child relationships and an in-crease in children’s emotional and be-havioral problems.28

Children’s Adjustment inHigh-Conflict Divorced Families

It is argued here that family laws as well ascourt policies are often justified by re-search findings from the broad popula-tion and are insufficiently backed bystudies of the special subgroup of the di-vorcing population to which they aremost frequently applied, that is, to fami-lies of high-conflict divorce. High-conflictdivorce is characterized by all of the fol-lowing: intractable legal disputes, ongo-ing conflict over parenting practices,hostility, physical threats, and intermit-tent violence. To address social policywith respect to the children of high-conflict divorce, it is necessary to evaluatethe extent to which child outcomes aremultiply determined and to examine therelative impact of interparental hostilityand physical aggression, parent psycho-pathology, and the custody and visita-tion arrangements on children’s func-tioning. Only a few such studies can befound scattered throughout the litera-ture. These studies are summarized herein some detail for the first time. Takentogether, they begin to paint a picture ofa subgroup of children at high risk whohave special social policy needs.

In 1988, Brotsky, Steinman, and Zem-melman made clinical observations of 67children (ages 1 to 15 years) from divorc-ing families at one, two, and four yearsafter separation.29 Almost half of the par-ents were referred by the family courts forcounseling because of disputed jointphysical custody; the remainder were at-tempting voluntarily to put together ajoint custody plan and had requestedhelp. The sample ranged broadly in termsof socioeconomic status and was 80%white. At the one-year follow-up, 12 fami-lies were classified as “successful” in imple-menting a cooperative joint custody plan,20 were seen as “stressed” by this endeavor,and 15 were rated as having “failed.”30

These three groups of couples weredistinguished by their capacity to respectand support each other’s parental effortswith the child and to keep separate andmodulate their own anger and ambi-valence toward the ex-spouse. The “suc-cessful” and “failed” groups clearly main-

High-Conflict Divorce 173

Table 1

Some Standardized Measures Used in Studies of High-Conflict Divorcing Familiesa

Name and Purpose of Measure Factors Examples of Items

Conflict Tactics (CT) scales Verbal reasoning, verbal(Straus, 1979)1 aggression, physical aggression18-item report on self and ex-spouse

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)(Derogatis and Spencer, 1982)18

53-item self-report by adults

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)(Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983)31

112-item parent report on child’sadjustment

Somatization, obsessive-compulsiveness, interpersonalsensitivity, depression, anxiety,phobia, paranoid ideation,hostility, psychoticism

Depression, withdrawal, somaticsymptoms, aggression,externalizing, internalizing

Discussed the issue calmly; insultedor swore at the other; slapped;punched, bit, hit the other; beat up;threatened with/used a weapon

Dizziness or faintness; difficulty makingdecisions; feelings easily hurt; feelslonely, blue; feels fearful; feels uneasyin crowds; feels watched or talkedabout; has urges to beat, injure, orharm someone; has idea thatsomeone else can control thoughts

Cries a lot; sad; worrying; refuses totalk; secretive; feels worthless; staresblankly; asthma; aches and pains;disobedient; physically attackspeople; gets into many fights;stubborn; sullen; irritable

a The psychometric properties of these well-established measures can be found in the referenced publications.

Sources: Ahrons, C.R. The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry(1981) 51:415-28. Also, Derogatis, L.R., and Spencer, P.M. The brief symptom inventory (BSI) administration, scoring and proceduresmanual: I. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1982. See also, notes 1, 18,and 31 at the end of this article.

tained their profile at the four-year follow-up; four-fifths of the “stressed” group hadbecome more cooperative and satisfiedwith the coparenting arrangement.

The important finding for social pol-icy is that, at each time of observation,those parents whose joint custody ar-rangements were court-ordered or court-recommended were more likely to beclassified as “failed” or “stressed,” andtheir children were more likely to besymptomatic or at high risk in terms oftheir behavioral, emotional, and socialadjustment. A cautionary note is soundedin that this study employed a small sampleand did not report results based on thestandardized measures that were used.

In 1989, Schaefer reported on a four-year follow-up of 83 children (ages 1 to 11years at separation) whose parents hadreached a settlement of custody throughcourt-ordered evaluations and/or judicialdecree.19 In half of the cases, the fathershad been awarded custody; these werematched with sole mother-custody casesaccording to age and gender of the child.

The socioeconomic status was predomi-nantly middle- to upper-middle-class, andfamilies were predominantly white. Thechildren’s adjustment was assessed by theChild Behavior Checklist (CBCL) com-pleted by the custodial parent.31 The par-ents reported their own symptomaticdistress on the Brief Symptom Inventory(BSI) and the amount of coparental com-munication (see Table 1).9,18

The findings indicated that parents’reports of their own emotional distresswere most strongly related to their reportsof the children’s adjustment. However, itcould not be determined whether this wasevidence of a true relationship or of theparents’ emotional state having biasedtheir perceptions of their children. Therewere few indications that coparental com-munication was related to the children’sadjustment. The custodial parent reportedsignificantly more internalizing symp-tomatology (for example, withdrawal, de-pression, somatic symptoms) when thechildren had more frequent access to theother parent. There were no significant

174 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

differences found in either the boys’ orgirls’ adjustment in mother-custodyhomes compared with father-custodyhomes on any of the measures. Thesefindings indicate that the custodial par-ent’s own adjustment is the best predic-tor of child adjustment and that childrenof both genders do as well in the primarycare of their fathers as in the primary careof their mothers, when these arrange-ments have been made after careful psy-chological evaluations of the best matchbetween parent and child. The value of fre-quent access to the noncustodial parentis, however, questionable.

Findings indicate that thecustodial parent’s own adjust-ment is the best predictor ofchild adjustment.

Johnston, Kline, and Tschann studied100 children (ages 1 to 12 years) whoseparents were referred by the family courtbecause of ongoing disputes over theircustody and care at the time of litigationand again about two and one-half yearslater.32 The children were ethnically rela-tively diverse (62% white) and from low-middle socioeconomic backgrounds.Children’s adjustment was measured by

an average of both parents’ reports on theCBCL.31 Interparental conflict was as-sessed by both parents’ reports on theConflict Tactics Scale (CTS), in which ver-bal aggression and physical aggressionwere combined (see Table 1).1 The cus-tody arrangement was rated in terms of thelegal decree, the amount of access (daysper month) with the visiting parent, andthe number of transitions per week be-tween parents. At the follow-up, 35% ofthese children were in joint physical cus-tody, 53% in mother custody, and 12% infather custody.

There was no clear evidence that chil-dren were better adjusted in either custodytype. However, as a group, children whohad more shared access to both parents injoint custody arrangements and those whohad more frequent visitation with a non-custodial mother or father in sole custodysituations were more emotionally and be-haviorally disturbed. Specifically, they weremore depressed, withdrawn, and/or un-communicative, had more somatic symp-toms, and tended to be more aggressive.

When gender groups were analyzedseparately, these findings were significantfor girls but, in general, not for boys. Thislongitudinal study showed that moreverbal and physical aggression was gener-ated between parents when children hadmore frequent access arrangements; con-sequently, these children tended to getmore caught up in the interparental con-

High-Conflict Divorce 175

flict. Whereas girls’ adjustment was moreadversely affected by more access to boththeir disputing parents, boys and olderchildren compared to younger ones weremore caught up and used in the parentalconflict that was generated as a conse-quence of the more frequent access ar-rangement, and this, in turn, was relatedto poorer child outcomes.32

Apart from the small size of this sam-ple, the main limitations of this studywere that only averaged parental reportson the children were used as outcomes(possibly obscuring differences betweenmothers and fathers); that the effects ofverbal aggression were not distinguishedfrom those of physical aggression; andthat parents’ individual dysfunction (analternative explanation for the findings)was not measured. Consequently, a sec-ond study was designed to correct someof these limitations.

In the second study, Johnston re-ported on the adjustment of 75 children(ages 3 to 12 years) in disputed-custodydivorces.12 Their parents were referredfrom the family court because of inter-parental violence or because there wasongoing conflict of a nonviolent nature.This sample was diverse in socioeconomicstatus and 80% white. In addition to thesame measures used in the first study,teachers rated the children, as did clini-cians.27,32,33 Parents’ individual dysfunc-tion was measured by the BSI.18 Withrespect to the custody of these children,36% were in joint physical custody, 57%were in sole mother custody, and 7% werein sole father custody.

Boys and girls appeared to differ intheir adjustment to the custody and accessarrangements. The overall results indi-cated that girls were functioning betterwhen in the primary care of their mothersin these high-conflict and physically vio-lent families (according to ratings bymothers, fathers, and clinicians, but notthose by teachers). There was someweaker evidence that boys did better whenthey had more access to their fathers (ac-cording to fathers’ and some teachers’ratings, but not to ratings by mothers orclinicians). However, more frequent ac-cess arrangements were associated withmore concurrent aggression between par-ents, which offset some of the benefits ofaccess for boys.

When all factors in this study weresimultaneously analyzed, the findings

were that a history of physical aggressionin the family was strongly and consistentlyassociated with emotional, behavioral,and social problems in children. It wasnot only directly predictive of more childdisturbance, it was also associated withmother’s diminished parenting, in thatmothers from violent relationships wereless warm and more coercive with theirchildren. In addition, the degree of bothmothers’ and fathers’ emotional dysfunc-tion independently predicted child dis-turbance, both directly and indirectly, asit was associated with less warmth andmore coerciveness in parenting. Apart

A history of physical aggressionin the family was strongly andconsistently associated with emo-tional, behavioral, and socialproblems in children.

from the small sample size, the weaknessof this study is that, because family rela-tionships and children’s functioning wereassessed at only one point in time, it re-mains undetermined what is cause andwhat is effect.

Each of the above studies (conductedby Brotsky and colleagues, by Schaefer,Johnston, and colleagues, and byJohnston) were of children of high-conflict divorce, whose parents had failedmediation, undergone evaluations, or hadcourt-imposed settlements.12,19,29,32 Ac-cording to Maccoby and Mnookin, thesecategories represent a small proportion,the top 10th percentile, of legal conflict inthe divorcing population.7

To what extent are these childrenseriously disturbed? In each of the stud-ies where standardized measures ofmaladjustment were reported, thesechildren scored as significantly more dis-turbed and were two to four times morelikely to have the kinds of adjustmentproblems typically seen in children be-ing treated for emotional and behavioraldisturbance as compared with nationalnorms. In general, boys were more symp-tomatic than girls.

Caution needs to be used in inter-preting and generalizing from these find-ings. Each study used a relatively smallsample of unknown representativeness of

176 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

the population of high-conflict divorce.Though all but one of these studies werelongitudinal in nature, only one used sta-tistical analyses enabling causal directionsto be tested.12,32 Only two employed mul-tivariate analysis to examine the joint andrelative effects of each factor. 12,32 Theeffects of age of child and ethnic differ-ences were not explored. In sum, theseshould be viewed as tentative correla-tional findings to be confirmed by furtherresearch. Despite the limitations, how-ever, the findings of all these studies arefairly consistent. Interparental conflict af-ter divorce (for example, verbal and

An association between joint custody/frequent access and poorer child adjust-ment appears to be confined to divorcesthat are termed “high-conflict.”

physical aggression, overt hostility, dis-trust) and the custodial parent’s emo-tional distress are jointly predictive ofmore problematic parent-child relation-ships and greater child maladjustment.Court-ordered joint physical custody andfrequent visitation arrangements tend tobe associated with poorer child outcomes,especially for girls.

It is important to note that the findingof an association between joint cus-tody/frequent access and poorer child ad-justment appears to be confined to thatsmall proportion of families (about one-tenth) of all divorces that are termed“high-conflict” as defined above. Severalother studies of the broader populationof divorcing families, where custody ar-rangements are generally made voluntar-ily by parents, indicate that joint physicalcustody and frequent visitation are notmore detrimental to the majority of chil-dren. In some cases, especially whereparents are cooperative, they are morebeneficial.34-36

Conflict ResolutionProcedures and ProgramsMediationMediation here is defined as the use of aneutral third party in a confidential settingto help disputing parents clearly defineissues, generate options, order priorities,

and then negotiate and bargain differ-ences and alternatives. In this method ofdispute resolution, the assumption is thatthe mediator can contain and deflect theemotional conflicts of the divorcing cou-ple and help them to become rational,focused, and goal oriented. In general,mediation of disputes about the custodyand care of children after divorce has beenwidely advocated as the forum of choicebecause it empowers parents to maketheir own decisions, avoids unnecessarystate interference in family affairs, and in-creases satisfaction and compliance withthe agreements made. Most states nowhave some provision for mediation in cus-tody disputes either by statute, court rule,or judicial referral.

Formal outcome studies of mediationand court experiences indicate that ratesof success in reaching agreement rangebetween 40% and 70%.37-40 It is impor-tant to note, however, that the “failures ofmediation” have all the characteristics of“high-conflict divorce.” The failures havebeen described as enmeshed and highlyconflicted couples who are ambivalentabout their separation and who have se-vere psychopathology or personality disor-ders.15-17 It is often argued that mediationis inappropriate for many dysfunctionalfamilies: where couples are chronicallylitigious, where there is domestic violence,where there are allegations of child abuseand molestation, and when one or bothparents are alleged to have serious psy-chological difficulties.41-43 Furthermore,it is difficult for parents to arrive at someconsensus when they have highly di-vergent perceptions of their children’sneeds and a pervasive distrust of eachother’s capacity to provide a secure envi-ronment. In sum, high-conflict divorcingfamilies have often been identified bytheir failure to make effective use of me-diation methods that rely upon a rationaldecision-making process.

Evaluation and Recommendations

When attorney negotiations and media-tion are ineffective, the courts generallyrely upon the expert testimony of mentalhealth professionals to help in the time-consuming task of fact finding and to of-fer opinions as to how disputes over thecustody and care of children should beresolved according to the current legalstandard, which is “the best interests ofthe child.” It is generally believed thatmental health evaluators are most useful

High-Conflict Divorce

if they serve as impartial experts ap-pointed by the court, or by stipulation ofboth parties, rather than as an expert re-tained by one party, who pits his or herprofessional opinions against that of theexpert retained by the other party.4 Evalu-ations can be conducted within servicesthat are a part of the court system, or byprivate practice professionals and com-munity agencies outside the court. Theycan involve a narrow focus on a particularissue (for example, which school the childshould attend) or entail a complete familyevaluation (for example, psychologicaltesting of all parties, school and homevisits, substance abuse assessments, childabuse and molestation investigations).

Studies of the outcome of the evalu-ation process indicate that the final courtorder is in accord with the recommenda-tion in about 85% of cases. In actuality, inabout 70% to 90% of the cases, after hear-ing the recommendations, the partiesreach a negotiated agreement which isthen entered as a consent judgment.4,7,44

Although evaluations appear to be very ef-fective in reaching an initial agreement,they often bring little relief for those high-conflict couples who harbor great distrustand hostility and have difficulty in cooper-ating and coparenting their children on adaily basis. A two-year follow-up study byAsh and Guyer of 267 families showed thatfamilies who had undergone custodyevaluations had a rate of relitigation thatwas two and one-half times the rate forfamilies who had settled by themselves(19% compared with 7%).4 Over approxi-mately an eight-year follow-up period, arecent study by Hauser and Straus of 700families confirmed this difference. Amongfamilies who had custody evaluations, 71%relitigated compared with 41% of the di-vorcing population in general.45

Visitation Enforcement Programs

Throughout the United States, a variety ofcourt-related services have been estab-lished to deal with ongoing coparental dis-putes over visitation and child care inhighly conflictual divorces.46 Typically,they involve one or more of the following:parent education (usually in groups); as-sessment and mediation of the visitationdispute; drafting more specific, enforce-able court orders; and monitoring visita-tion by letter or telephone. Increasingly,these services are seen as having a proba-tionlike function, and in some cases theyare specifically used as a diversion pro-

177

gram in lieu of prosecution for contemptof court orders. In some jurisdictions, par-ticularly litigious families are assigned a“case manager” (for example, a judge orcourt counselor) who is responsible forcoordinating the numerous court actionswith the many professionals and othersinvolved in the family dispute. The effec-tiveness of some of these programs in en-suring the child’s conflict-free access to thenoncustodial parent is currently beingevaluated. Of particular interest is whetherimproved access leads to increased com-pliance with child support orders.46

Therapeutic RemediesIt is evident that misplaced and escalat-ing personal and spousal conflicts of di-vorcing couples, whether emanating fromlong-term difficulties or from separation-engendered conflict, result in resistanceto mediation, questionable negotiationstrategies, unrealistic custody and accessdemands in repeated litigation, and on-going inability to cooperate on behalf ofthe children. From a therapeutic view-point, a more appropriate intervention re-

From a therapeutic viewpoint, amore appropriate interventionrequires gaining some understand-ing of why these parents are lockedinto chronic disputes.

quires gaining some understanding of whythese parents are locked into chronic dis-putes. Based on such understanding,therapists can devise strategic, focusedtherapeutic interventions aimed at the im-passe, which will help these parents tomake decisions more rationally. Moreover,based upon an understanding of the devel-opmental needs of the individual child,therapists can help parents focus on meet-ing the needs of their children, separatefrom their own psychological agendas.This approach has generally been referredto as “therapeutic mediation” and hasbeen most highly developed as a methodcalled “impasse-directed mediation” byJohnston and Campbell.11,17,47

Typically, this dispute resolutionmethod involves both parents and theirchildren in a relatively brief, confidentialintervention (15 to 25 hours), which canbe adapted either to individual high-

178 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

conflict families or to groups of suchfamilies. The strategy is two-pronged: Onone hand, parents are helped to developsome awareness or insight into their psy-chological impasse (or, there is an inter-vention with the extended family andsignificant others, including professionals,which aims to avoid the impasse for thoseparents who are too disturbed to benefitfrom direct counseling). On the otherhand, parents are educated as to the ef-fects of their conflict on their childrenand counseled about how to protect theirchildren from the spousal disputes. Sub-sequently, parents are helped to negotiatea coparenting plan and are provided withsome assistance in implementing or modi-fying their arrangements in scheduled, orintermittent, follow-up sessions. A two- tothree-year follow-up of two studies of high-conflict families (n = 80 and n = 60) whoreceived this treatment indicated thattwo-thirds were able to keep or renegoti-ate their own agreements regarding cus-tody and access and, consequently, to stayout of court. The group method was foundto be 40% more cost-effective than theindividual method.11,48

Coparenting ArbitrationThis is a relatively new approach, whichhas been developed for those high-conflict families who need continualstructure and help with their parentingand coparenting after divorce over a longperiod of time. Essentially, it involves amental health specialist (variously called a

Supervised visitation programscomprise a rapidly growingnew social service that has beendeveloped in direct response tointractable divorce disputes.

court master, custody commissioner, co-parenting counselor, guardian ad litem)who is appointed by the court or by stipu-lation of the parties. This person is thenavailable to the family on an ongoing or“as needed” basis to help with decisionsabout the children. Depending upon thespecific contract with the family, any or allof the following methods may be used:counseling, mediation, recommendation,and arbitration. This kind of intervention

can be useful in a variety of cases: thosethat involve chronic litigation and en-meshed family conflicts; where there areongoing allegations of abuse (physical orsexual) or there is concern about domesticviolence; where there is intermittent men-tal illness of a parent that needs monitor-ing; when a child has special needs (forexample, physical or mental disability)that require close coordination betweenparents; or, simply, when children are veryyoung (infants) and the parenting planmust be reworked over time in response tothe changing needs occasioned by theirrapid development. To date, no knownstudies have evaluated the effectiveness ofthese kinds of approaches.

Supervised Visitation

Supervised visitation programs comprisea rapidly growing new social service thathas been developed in direct response tointractable divorce disputes. Currently,there are more than 70 such programsnationwide, brought together by a fledg-ling organization called the SupervisedVisitation Network.49 Largely staffed bytrained volunteers or counseling internsand funded variously by local, state, orcharitable grants and by advocacy groups(for example, domestic violence agen-cies), these programs provide a protectedsetting for visitation to occur betweenchildren and their noncustodial par-ents.50 This supervision can take a varietyof forms, and its extensiveness can varyover time. In the most extreme cases, thesupervision may be part of a therapeuticintervention into the parent-child rela-tionship and is undertaken by a trainedcounselor.

Where the children are at high risk(because of a parent’s psychological dis-turbance, substance abuse problems, his-tory of emotional or physical abuse,molestation, serious domestic violence, orchild abduction), visitation may occur onlyunder the continual surveillance of a neu-tral third person in a closed setting. Insituations of less gravity, supervision maybe performed in an open setting (for ex-ample, at a park, or in the noncustodialparent’s home) by family members orfriends. Where there is no direct threat tothe child but there is a possibility of verbalor physical abuse between parents, the su-pervision may be limited to the time ofexchange of the child at a safe, neutralplace. There have been no formal evalu-ations of these programs to date.

High-Conflict Divorce 179

Implications for SocialPolicyWhat kind of public policy with respect tocustody and visitation is supported by thecurrent body of research on high-conflictdivorce? The more conservative ap-proach is to note the limitations of thisresearch and to conclude that there areno policy implications (the studies are toofew, comprise small nonrepresentativesamples, have not adequately demon-strated causal relationships between dif-ferent custody/access arrangements andchild outcomes, have not differentiatedbetween children of different ages, andhave not examined cultural differences).This conclusion, however, leaves no guide-lines for daily decision making in familycourts. A more helpful approach is to pro-pose a number of principles that shouldguide custody decision making, recogniz-ing that individual cases raise multipleissues which require good clinical judg-ment and judicial discretion. It is alsoimportant to note that these policy prin-ciples may change as more becomesknown about these families.

Key Principlesn Children need custody and access ar-rangements that minimize the potentialfor ongoing interparental conflict; theyespecially need to be protected from expo-sure to violence.51

n Children are better off in the care of aparent who is relatively free of psycholo-gical disturbance or substance abuse inas-much as both of these conditions compro-mise parenting.

n A good parent-child relationship is thebest predictor of good outcomes in chil-dren. It is this domain that should carryconsiderable weight in determining achild’s primary residential arrangement inthese families.

n The present research base indicatesthat high-conflict divorced parents have arelatively poor prognosis for developingcooperative coparenting arrangementswithout a great deal of therapeutic inter-vention. The fourth principle, then, isthat custody arrangements should allowparents to disengage from their conflictwith each other and develop parallel and

separate parenting relationships with theirchildren, governed by an explicit contractthat determines the access plan. A clearlyspecified regular visitation plan is crucial,and the need for shared decision makingand direct communication should be keptto a minimum. This fourth principle im-plies, therefore, that joint legal and jointphysical custody schedules which require

Children need custody and accessarrangements that minimize thepotential for ongoing interparentalconflict; they especially need to beprotected from exposure to violence.

careful coordination of the child’s social,academic, and extracurricular activitiesare generally inappropriate for this spe-cial subpopulation of divorcing families,as are frequent transitions of the childbetween parents for visitation purposes.This principle may need to be modifiedfor very young, preschool children whohave difficulty remembering an absentparent unless access occurs at more fre-quent intervals.

n Where there is concern about the ca-pacity of both parents to protect the childfrom the interparental conflict and theirown disturbed attitudes and behavior, itmay be appropriate to give more weight inthe custody/access decision to providingthe child with continuity in relationshipswith supportive others (such as teachers,peers, grandparents) and stability of place(such as neighborhood and school). Inthese more difficult cases, custody and ac-cess awards can be made contingent uponeither or both parents’ obtaining appro-priate counseling (for parenting, violence,substance abuse, and the like). Finally, ifconflict continues, children themselvesmay be better protected if a court orderassures them of direct access on an on-going basis to their own counselor, onewho can maintain a positive or equidistantrelationship with both parents and helpthe children directly.

1. Straus, M.A. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales.Journal of Marriage and the Family (1979) 41:75-86.

180 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

2. Ahrons, C.R., and Rogers, R.H. Divorced families: A multidisciplinary developmental view. NewYork: W.W. Norton, 1987.

3. Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., and Cox, R. Effects of divorce on parents and children. InNontraditional families. M.E. Lamb, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1982,pp. 223-88.

4. Ash, P., and Guyer, M.J. Child psychiatry and the law: The functions of psychiatric evalu-ation in contested custody and visitation cases. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psy-chiatry (1986) 25:554-61. Ash, P., and Guyer, M.J. Relitigation after contested custody andvisitation evaluations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (1986)14:323-30.

5. This focus leaves untouched the serious social policy question of the relationship betweendisputes over child support and those over custody and access to children, a question thatis presently under research in a multisite national study (J. Pearson, Center for Policy Re-search, 1720 Emerson St., Denver, CO 90218).

6. Furstenberg, Jr., F.F., and Nord, C.W. Parenting apart: Patterns in childrearing after maritaldisruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1985) 47:893-904.

7. Maccoby, E.E., and Mnookin, R.H. Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.

8. Wallerstein, J.S., and Kelly, J.B. Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with di-vorce. New York: Basic Books, 1980.

9. Ahrons, C.R. The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry (1981) 51:415-28.

10. Depner, C.E., Cannata, K.V., and Simon, M.B. Building a uniform statistical reporting sys-tem: A snapshot of California Family Court Services. Family and Conciliation Courts Review(1992) 30:185-206.

11. Johnston, J.R., and Campbell, L.E.G. Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution of familyconflict. New York: Free Press, 1988.

12. Johnston, J.R. High-conflict and violent parents in family court: Findings on children’s adjustmentand proposed guidelines for the resolution of custody and visitation disputes. Final report to theJudicial Council of the State of California, Statewide Office of Family Court Services. SanFrancisco: Judicial Council, 1992.

13. Gonzalez, R., Krantz, S.E., and Johnston, J.R. Predictors of post-divorce conflict. Paper pre-sented at the Western Psychological Association meetings. San Francisco, April 1984.

14. Hauser, B.B. Custody in dispute: Legal and psychological profiles of contesting families.Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry (1985) 24:575-82.

15. Kressel, K., Jaffe, N., Tuchman, B., et al. A typology of divorcing couples: Implications formediation and the divorce process. Family Process (1980) 19:101-16.

16. Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. Mediation project—An update. The Colorado Lawyer FamilyLaw Newsletter (1980) 712-21.

17. Waldron, J.A., Roth, C.P., Farr, P.H., et al. A therapeutic mediation model for child custodydispute resolution. Mediation Quarterly (1984) 3:5-20.

18. Derogatis, L.R., and Spencer, P.M. The brief symptom inventory (BSI) administration, scoringand procedures manual: I. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research, Johns HopkinsUniversity School of Medicine, 1982.

19. Schaefer, M.P. Children’s adjustment in contented mother-custody and contented father-custody homes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Psychology, Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1989.

20. Emery, R.E. Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. PsychologicalBulletin (1982) 92:310-30.

21. Grych, J.H., and Fincham, F.D. Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin (1990) 108:267-90.

22. Depner, C.E., Leino, E.V., and Chun, A. Interparental conflict and child adjustment: A dec-ade review and meta-analysis. Family and Conciliation Courts Review (1992) 3:323-41.

23. Cherlin, A.J., Furstenberg, Jr., F.F., Chase-Lansdale, P.O., et al. Longitudinal studies of ef-fects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science (1991)252:1386-89.

24. Rutter, M. Maternal deprivation 1972-1979: New findings, new concepts, new approaches.Child Development (1979) 50:283-305.

High-Conflict Divorce 181

25. Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., and Wilson, S. Children of battered women. Vol. 21 of Developmental clini-cal psychology and psychiatry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.

26. Tschann, J.M., Johnston, J.R., Kline, M., and Wallerstein, J.S. Family process and children’sfunctioning during divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1989) 51:431-44.

27. Kline, M., Johnston, J.R., and Tschann, J.M. The long shadow of marital conflict: A familyprocess model of children’s adjustment postdivorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family(1990) 53:297-309.

28. Johnston, J.R. Family transitions and children’s functioning: The case of parentalconflict and divorce. In Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda for family research. P.A.Cowan, D. Field, D.A. Hansen et al., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1993, pp. 197-234.

29. Brotsky, M., Steinman, S., and Zemmelman, S. Joint custody through mediation: A longitu-dinal assessment of children. Conciliation Courts Review (1988) 26:53-8.

30. Steinman, S.B., Zemmelman, S.E., and Knoblauch, T.M. A study of parents who soughtjoint custody following divorce: Who reaches agreement and sustains joint custody andwho returns to court. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry (1985) 24:554-62.

31. Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. Manual for the child behavior checklist and revised childbehavior profile. Burlington, VT: Queen City Printers, 1983.

32. Johnston, J.R., Kline, M., and Tschann, J. Ongoing postdivorce conflict in families contest-ing custody: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry (1989) 59:576-92.

33. Hightower, A.D., Work, W.C., Cowen, E.L., et al. The teacher-child rating scale: A brief ob-jective measure of elementary children’s school behavior problems and competencies.School Psychology Review (1986) 15:393-409.

34. Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. Custody after divorce: Demographic and attitudinal patterns.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (1990) 60:233-49.

35. Buchanan, C.M., Maccoby, E.E., and Dornbusch, S.M. Caught between parents: Adoles-cents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development (1991) 62:1008-29.

36. Kline, M., Tschann, J.M., Johnston, J.R., and Wallerstein, J.S. Children’s adjustment in jointand sole physical custody families. Developmental Psychology (1989) 25:430-38.

37. Emery, R., and Wyer, M. Child custody mediation and litigation: An experimental evalu-ation of the experience of parents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1987)55:179-86.

38. Koch, M.P., and Lowery, C.R. Evaluation of mediation as an alternative to divorce litigation.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (1984) 15:109-20.

39. Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. Final report of the divorce mediation research project. 90-CW-634.Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Research Institute, 1984,pp. l-74.

40. Sprenkle, D.H., and Storm, C.L. Divorce therapy outcome research: A substantive andmethodological review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (1983) 9:239-58.

41. Girdner, L., ed. Mediation and spousal abuse. Special issue of Mediation Quarterly (1990)18:3-8.

42. Germane, C., Johnson, M., and Lemon, N. Mandatory custody mediation and joint custodyorders in California: The dangers for victims of domestic violence. Berkeley Women’s LawJournal (1985) 1:175-200.

43. Pearson, J., and Thoennes, N. Divorce mediation research results. In Divorce mediation: The-ory and practice. J. Folberg and A. Milne, eds. New York: Guilford Press, 1988, pp. 429-52.

44. Simons, V.A., Grossman, L.S., and Weiner, B.J. A study of families in high conflict custodydisputes: Effects of psychiatric evaluation. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry andthe Law (1990) 18:85-97.

45. Hauser, B.B., and Straus, R.B. Legal and psychological dimensions of joint and sole custodyagreements. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Orthopsychia-tric Association. Toronto, March 1991.

46. Pearson, J., and Anhalt, J. The visitation enforcement program: Impact on child access and child sup-port. Final report. Grant No. 89M-E-021. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research, 1992.Available from the Center for Policy Research, 1720 Emerson St., Denver, CO 80218.

47. Milne, A. Custody of children in a divorce process: A family self-determination model. Con-ciliation Courts Review (1978) 16: 1-16.

182 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – SPRING 1994

48. Johnston, J.R. Developing preventive interventions for children of severe family conflict and violence:A comparison of three models. Technical report. Corte Madera, CA: Center for the Family inTransition, 1993. Available from the Center for the Family in Transition, 5725 ParadiseDr., Bldg. B, Suite 300, Corte Madera, CA 94925.

49. Straus, R., and Alda, E. Supervised child access: The evolution of a social service. Family andConciliation Courts Review (1994) 32:230-47.

50. James, B., and Gibson, C. Supervising visits between parent and child. Family and Concili-ation Courts Review (1991) 29:73-84.

51. See note no. 12, Johnston, for a comprehensive set of guidelines for the disposition of cus-tody and access in domestic violence families.

View publication statsView publication stats