Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Mediation

 
 
Presenter: Jeannie M. Adams, MA, Director
Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division
 
Co-Authors
Amy G. Applegate, JD
Maurer School of Law
Indiana University—Bloomington
Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, PhD
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Indiana University—Bloomington
Connie J. Beck, PhD
Psychology, Policy and Law Department
University of Arizona
Fernanda S. Rossi, PhD
Fernanda S. Rossi, Ph.D.
VA Palo Alto Health Care System
Stanford University
 
 
 Is 
Mediation
 Safe and Appropriate
for Cases with
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)?
 
 
2
 
 
Mediation assumes that parents are roughly equal in
bargaining power and capable of negotiating
 
Parents will bargain in good faith to reach agreements
that are safe and in the best interests of children
 
Differing Views on Whether Mediation
is Safe and Appropriate for Cases with
IPV?
 
Mediation is never appropriate for this population
 
Mediation may be appropriate with accommodations,
including:
Support person or attorney
Security measures
Suspend or terminate mediation as necessary
Parties kept physically separate, e.g.,
Shuttle mediation
Telephone, on-line, or
Video-conferencing mediation
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
 
Screening process, detecting IPV in
family and divorce cases
 
Mediation program staff administer IPV screening of all
mediation parties
Multi-Door Screening Process
Mediator Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns 
(MASIC)
 
 
Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns 
Holtzworth-
Munroe, Beck, & Applegate (2010) 
Family Court Review
Definition of Intimate Partner
Violence (IPV)
 
Multidimensional Construct
Psychological/Emotional Abuse
Coercive Controlling Behaviors
Physical Aggression and Violence
Sexual Assault, Intimidation & Coercion
Stalking
Fear
 
 
Systematic
 IPV screen led to more
party reports of IPV
 
Screening determines suitability for mediation:
 
Study 1 findings,
A behaviorally specific systematic screening instrument
(MASIC) detected more IPV than
 
A set of systematic screening questions (Multi-Door) that
was not behaviorally specific
 
 
 
Multi Door Process for Screening for IPV
 
Administered by trained staff
 
Conducted in a safe and sensitive way
Interview with parties separated
 
Systematic (every case)
 
Standardized measure and process
 
Behaviorally Specific questions asked
 
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and
Custody Decisions:
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Outcomes from
Family Court,
Shuttle Mediation or
Videoconferencing Mediation
 
Key Personnel: Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, Applegate,
Hale, Adams, & Rossi
 
 
Funded by: National Institute of Justice
This project was supported by Award No. 2013-VA-CX-0044, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department
of Justice.
 
9
 
Study 2. National Institute for Justice
Grant funded
Randomized Controlled Study
 
Randomized Controlled Study
Study groups
Shuttle mediation
Video conferencing mediation
Back to court
 
Voluntary participation
Safety protocols in place
Support from DV Community, Office of Violence Against Women and
Battered Women’s Justice Project
 
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
and Mediation
 
Concerns:
Safety (victim and others)
Power imbalance (victim vs abuser)
Victim not able to exercise self-determination
 
Proponent responses:
Would victim fare better in court?
Disempowerment of victim who wants to mediate
Accommodations address concerns
 
 
 
11
 
Design to maximize safety
 
Protocols for arrival and departure
Security officers present
Panic buttons in rooms
Mediators and staff trained in IPV
Findings cannot be applied to less safe environments
or untrained mediators.
Not suggesting mandated mediation or joint
mediation for these cases.
 
 
Reported feeling safe during process, more satisfied
and more positive feelings about various aspects of
process, such as fairness, building rapport
No significant differences in case outcome across
conditions with regard to satisfaction with outcome
or mediator.
 
Contact information
 
Jeannie M. Adams, Director
    Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division
Email: jeannie.adams@dcsc.gov
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Exploring the safety and appropriateness of mediation in cases involving Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), this content discusses differing viewpoints on the matter, the screening process to detect IPV, definitions of IPV, and the importance of systemic IPV screening. It highlights the need for accommodations in mediation for cases with IPV, such as support persons, security measures, and physical separation of parties.

  • Mediation
  • Intimate Partner Violence
  • IPV Screening
  • Safety Measures
  • Parental Negotiation

Uploaded on Sep 27, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Presenter: Jeannie M. Adams, MA, Director Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division Co-Authors Amy G. Applegate, JD Maurer School of Law Indiana University Bloomington Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, PhD Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Indiana University Bloomington Connie J. Beck, PhD Psychology, Policy and Law Department University of Arizona Fernanda S. Rossi, PhD Fernanda S. Rossi, Ph.D. VA Palo Alto Health Care System Stanford University

  2. Is Mediation Safe and Appropriate for Cases with Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)? 2

  3. Mediation assumes that parents are roughly equal in bargaining power and capable of negotiating Parents will bargain in good faith to reach agreements that are safe and in the best interests of children

  4. Differing Views on Whether Mediation is Safe and Appropriate for Cases with IPV? Mediation is never appropriate for this population Mediation may be appropriate with accommodations, including: Support person or attorney Security measures Suspend or terminate mediation as necessary Parties kept physically separate, e.g., Shuttle mediation Telephone, on-line, or Video-conferencing mediation 4

  5. Screening process, detecting IPV in family and divorce cases Mediation program staff administer IPV screening of all mediation parties Multi-Door Screening Process Mediator Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC) Mediator s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns Holtzworth- Munroe, Beck, & Applegate (2010) Family Court Review

  6. Definition of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Multidimensional Construct Psychological/Emotional Abuse Coercive Controlling Behaviors Physical Aggression and Violence Sexual Assault, Intimidation & Coercion Stalking Fear

  7. Systematic IPV screen led to more party reports of IPV Screening determines suitability for mediation: Study 1 findings, A behaviorally specific systematic screening instrument (MASIC) detected more IPV than A set of systematic screening questions (Multi-Door) that was not behaviorally specific

  8. Multi Door Process for Screening for IPV Administered by trained staff Conducted in a safe and sensitive way Interview with parties separated Systematic (every case) Standardized measure and process Behaviorally Specific questions asked

  9. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Custody Decisions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Outcomes from Family Court, Shuttle Mediation or Videoconferencing Mediation Key Personnel: Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, Applegate, Hale, Adams, & Rossi Funded by: National Institute of Justice This project was supported by Award No. 2013-VA-CX-0044, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. 9

  10. Study 2. National Institute for Justice Grant funded Randomized Controlled Study Randomized Controlled Study Study groups Shuttle mediation Video conferencing mediation Back to court Voluntary participation Safety protocols in place Support from DV Community, Office of Violence Against Women and Battered Women s Justice Project

  11. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Mediation Concerns: Safety (victim and others) Power imbalance (victim vs abuser) Victim not able to exercise self-determination Proponent responses: Would victim fare better in court? Disempowerment of victim who wants to mediate Accommodations address concerns 11

  12. Design to maximize safety Protocols for arrival and departure Security officers present Panic buttons in rooms Mediators and staff trained in IPV Findings cannot be applied to less safe environments or untrained mediators. Not suggesting mandated mediation or joint mediation for these cases.

  13. Reported feeling safe during process, more satisfied and more positive feelings about various aspects of process, such as fairness, building rapport No significant differences in case outcome across conditions with regard to satisfaction with outcome or mediator.

  14. Contact information Jeannie M. Adams, Director Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division Email: jeannie.adams@dcsc.gov

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#