COMPARING THE MEDIATION AGREEMENTS OF FAMILIES WITH AND WITHOUT A HISTORY OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE*

Abstract

We coded the content of mediation agreements reached by families receiving parenting‐related mediation services at a law school community clinic. We compared agreements reached by families identified as having or not having a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) on a variety of issues hypothesized to be related to risk of future interparental contact and conflict and thus violence. Families with and without a history of IPV did not make significantly different legal or physical custody or parenting‐time arrangements. Nor did these groups differ in specifying the details of how to handle some issues that could lead to future conflict (e.g., making up missed parenting time). They also did not differ in the likelihood of agreeing to supervised visitation or exchanges of children in public places. However, agreements of families with a history of IPV were more likely to include safety restrictions (e.g., restrictions on interparental fighting, physical discipline of children, substance use) and counseling referrals. We discuss implications of the study findings in the context of the debate surrounding mediation with families who have experienced IPV.Key Points for Family Court Community: The appropriateness of mediation with families exhibiting a history of IPV is a focal point of debate in family law. This work compares the content of mediation agreements reached by families with and without a history of IPV in a law school community clinic.