Adversarial Divorce Research Articles

Gay Fathers’ Coparenting Experiences with Their Ex-Wives

This grounded theory study examines postdivorce coparenting experiences of 16 fathers who had children in the context of heterosexual marriage and later identified as gay. They described coparenting experiences as either mostly cooperative or uncooperative. When ex-wives accepted them as gay men and good fathers, the gay fathers described their coparenting as cooperative. When ex-wives expressed homonegativity, the fathers described coparenting as uncooperative. These fathers also reported more adversarial divorce proceedings, more intense anger, and less ability of their ex-wives to move on postdivorce. Although the fathers in this study are fairly racially and generationally homogenous, their stories provide insights into a unique cultural context older white gay men may experience when navigating coparenting with ex-wives. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2021.2008285 .

Motivaties van maatschappelijk werkers voor het wel of niet verwijzen naar de Begeleide OmgangsRegeling van Humanitas

Motivations of social workers to refer to the intervention of Humanitas to arrange good visitation plans between a parent who is in an adversarial divorce and their children. Since 2007 Humanitas, a nonprofit social services association which aims to support people who, for a range of different reasons, temporarily can not manage on their own, accompanies parents who are in an adversarial divorce, in order to realise or restore good visitation plans between children in the age of zero to twelve years and the parent who lives elsewhere. Humanitas gets many referrals from youth care but hardly any from professionals in the preventive domain. This article describes the motivations of social workers to refer to the intervention of Humanitas. The way the results of this research are implemented is addressed as well.

Gate-keeper, supervisor or mentor? The role of professional bodies in the regulation and professional development of solicitors and family mediators undertaking divorce matters in England and Wales

This article sets out findings from a grounded theory analysis of the professional training and accreditation requirements for solicitors, accredited specialist family law solicitors and family mediators in England and Wales as set by their professional bodies: the Law Society of England and Wales and the then UK College of Family Mediators.1 It examines the roles that the professional bodies ascribe to themselves with respect to their profession and their members, considering the extent to which professional regulation fulfils gate-keeping, supervisory or mentoring roles. In conclusion it suggests that in the light of the cues transmitted by the professional bodies in England and Wales in respect of divorce cases and clients, the very nature of professional practice as a family law solicitor and as a family mediator is being transformed into a form of hybrid practice that draws upon two radically different epistemological traditions, with important consequences for solicitors, family mediators and their clients.2 Thus, it challenges the largely accepted dichotomy of adversarial divorce practice on the part of solicitors in opposition to the consensus-based approach practised by family mediators.

Facilitating Factors for Nonresident Parents' Financial Provisions for Children in Hong Kong

This study examines the facilitating factors for nonresident parents' financial provisions for children among the Chinese in Hong Kong. It found that financial provisions from nonresident parents are subject to economic and ideological as well as relational factors. The results call for the enhancement of active parenting of nonresident parents in a context of cooperative and supportive parental relationship, as well as for adequate employment support to poor nonresident parents. Findings of the study support the recent law reform on creating a less adversarial divorce system that is more conducive to a culture of settlement and cooperation, and on a shifted emphasis from parental rights to both rights and responsibilities of divorced parents.

Kramer vs. Kramer Revisited: A Comment on the Miller Commission Report and the Obligation of Divorce Lawyers for Parents to Discuss Alternative Dispute Resolution with Their Clients

The 2006 Report of New York State's Matrimonial Commission to Chief Judge Kaye (commonly know as the Miller Commission Report) recommended that New York begin to incorporate alternative dispute resolution into the State's fragmented and adversarial divorce system. This Comment argues that it should have more strongly recommended that divorce lawyers be mandated to discuss alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation, with parent-clients before filing suit. The Comment begins by describing the advice given to a parent client in the movie Kramer vs. Kramer and argues that that advice constitutes zealous advocacy as famously described by Henry Lord Brougham in Queen Caroline's Case. While the advice given the parent client in Kramer v. Kramer is consistent with current notions of professional responsibility for lawyers, it does not serve the best interests of children in that it did not incorporate advice about the general importance of reducing conflict between parents to the best interests of children or discuss methods for doing so. The Comment contrasts zealous advocacy as portrayed in Kramer v. Kramer with problem solving advocacy as described by Lincoln, Gandhi and the Bounds of Advocacy of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. It argues that empirical research has demonstrated that judicial and legislative mandates that lawyers discuss alternative dispute resolution with clients are in the best interests of children, promote problem solving advocacy, and are generally appreciated by divorcing parent clients. Finally, this Comment briefly explores whether divorce lawyers should have a mandatory ethical responsibility to children of parents, and concludes that for the present, that duty should be aspirational only.

Just Married? Adversarial Divorce and the Conjugal Body Politic

Just Married? Adversarial Divorce and the Conjugal Body Politic

Just Married? Adversarial Divorce and the Conjugal Body Politic

Fault does not figure in Australian divorce law. The Family Law Act 1975 regulates divorce, allowing a decree nisi to be issued where a marriage has irretrievably broken down. Australian regulations do not inquire into the cause of breakdown, but simply seek evidence that the divorcing spouses have lived separately and apart for at least 12 months. However, it has not always been so and, if the backlash against womens interests accelerates, it may not remain so. Recently, mens rights groups such as the ‘Blackshirts’ and ‘Promise Keepers’ have added their weight to the backlash push for a return to those ‘family values’ epitomized by an earlier, ostensibly pre-feminist era. These groups trumpet the desirability of truly lifelong marriage and an end to ‘easy’ divorce. They favour marriage laws harking back to obsolete, fault-based judgements. This article revisits divorce premised on matrimonial offence. With the benefit of hindsight, the Acts adversarial operations and effects are re-examined to expose the vestiges of coverture inhering therein.

To mediate or not to mediate: Financial outcomes in mediated versus adversarial divorces

AbstractA statewide sample of 199 mediated and 201 adversarial divorce cases in Connecticut was analyzed for differences in financial outcomes between the two formats. No differences were found between mediated and adversarial cases in family income or liability outcomes for women, in likelihood of periodic alimony being received, or in amount of alimony received. However, women in mediated cases obtained a significantly greater percentage of assets than women in adversarial cases, periodic alimony for a significantly longer duration, and significantly more child support. Adversarial cases had significantly more postjudgment modifications and took longer from complaint to judgment.

Social Work and the Pursuit of Justice through Mediation

Key words: dispute resolution; criminal offenders; divorce; mediation; victims Alternative dispute resolution methods, including mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, have been used worldwide for centuries. Although most recently developed to divert certain types of disputes from the backlogged formal court process, these methods are still referred to as alternative processes. In fact, methods such as domination through physical force, duels, war, coin tosses, treaty negotiation, adjudication, and (Milne, 1985, p. 3) have been prominent courses of action since the early days of civilization. Many accounts of the use of arbitration are found in the Bible (Chaykin, 1984), and a variety of cultures from Africa to China to the United States have relied on mediation procedures (Milne, 1985). In mediation the parties involved in the dispute voice their personal problems and definitions; offer solutions to the problems; discuss possible compromises; and, if successful, agree on a resolution. The parties are assisted in this process by a neutral, objective third person--the mediator--who facilitates problem definition and solving by using a variety of communication techniques and by refusing to engage in therapy, lawyering, and decision making. This article discusses divorce and victim-offender mediation and is intended to stimulate dialogue about creative ways in which mediation can be used to promote peaceful, win-win resolutions of interpersonal conflicts. The authors are committed to mediation as a viable method by which disputing parties can realize swifter and more personally meaningful justice than by using the courts, the traditional adversarial venue. The mediation process complements social work's values by empowering clients to plan for their future and doing so with a problem-solving focus. Divorce Mediation In 1980 nearly 1.2 million divorces affected America's children (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1989, cited in Gerber, 1990). About 1 million divorces occur each year, and nearly one in five school children live in single-parent households (White, 1990). Traditionally, divorcing spouses have battled in the courtroom, where the private relationship suddenly is made a public affair: Every cry of anguish or protest can become a matter of public record (Stuart & Jacobson, 1986-87, p. 72). Divorce, however, is not simply a legal matter but rather a series of legal, social, psychological, economic, and sexual changes that occur over time (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Although manifested differently, these changes affect the adults as well as the children. Divorce mediation is a relatively new and rapidly growing area of specialization (Chandler & Chandler, 1987). In mediation spouses are ensured privacy while making decisions that will affect their future. At least 35 states and Washington, DC, have instituted mediation programs to deal with domestic relations issues (Goldberg, 1992). Philosophical Rationale It is generally believed that if couples can resolve their disputes in a minimally antagonistic, non-adversarial atmosphere, the volatile interpersonal nature of divorce disputes will be diffused, and any children involved will benefit. In support of this philosophical rationale, Stuart and Jacobson (1986-87) pointed out that it is a paradox that, while poor communication is a contributing factor in many divorces, a couple's success in ending their marriage hinges on their ability to exchange information effectively (pp. 79-80). In divorce mediation spouses control the subject matter of the negotiations and focus on the anticipated needs of their children and themselves as single parents. In contrast, the adversarial divorce process takes control away from the spouses and often focuses on the wrongs of the past rather than on the building of a new future for all involved. The courts have neither the capacity nor the structure to accommodate the dynamics of the human variables essential for restructuring the postdivorce family unit. …

Parent interaction after divorce: Comparison of mediated and adversarial divorce processes

AbstractThe interactions and perceptions of two groups of divorcing parents using different dispute resolution processes were compared at final divorce and at 1 and 2 years post‐divorce. Using objective and standardized measures, the effectiveness of a comprehensive divorce mediation process was contrasted to the more customary two attorney adversarial process. The 153 parents at final divorce were part of a larger, longitudinal study of 435 divorcing men and women who were followed from the beginning of divorce to 2 years post‐divorce. Parents in the divorce mediation group reported less conflict during the divorcing period, and less conflict, more contact and communication, and a more positive attitude toward the other parent at final divorce, results which remained significant after controlling for several baseline group differences. The majority of differences favoring the mediation intervention continued through the first year after divorce, and disappeared by the 2 year post‐divorce data collection. The nature of the mediation process is discussed in relation to these parental behaviors and attitudes.

Is mediation less expensive? Comparison of mediated and adversarial divorce costs

AbstractCouples obtaining divorces using the two‐attorney adversarial process spent 134 percent more in total fees than couples using a comprehensive divorce mediation to resolve all issues. The two groups did not differ in complexity of divorce, marital conflict, anger at spouse, anticipated disagreement, or household income.

Mediated and adversarial divorce: Respondents' perceptions of their processes and outcomes

AbstractThis report, from a larger longitudinal study of mediated and adversarial divorce processes, indicates that mediation respondents perceive multiple aspects of their process and agreements to be more satisfactory compared to a group of men and women using the two‐attorney adversarial approach.

The Effect of Cooperation on Egocentrism in Divorce Mediation:

In the past several years practitioners have been increasingly employing mediation as a vehicle for achieving resolution of interpersonal as well as interorganizational conflicts. The need to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of these mediation interventions has promoted research interest in this area. The present study examines one type of mediation, that designed to assist divorcing parties. Subject's levels of egocentrism were assessed before and after they experienced either a high cooperation or low cooperation experimental manipulation, designed to simulate the adversarial divorce and mediated divorce, respectively. Measures of egocentrism and problem-solving efficiency indicated that subjects in the low-cooperation condition were more likely to exhibit egocentric functioning after the manipulation than were their counterparts in the high cooperation condition. It was also found that the high cooperation subjects showed a generalization of cooperativeness from the manipulation to the problem-solving task which followed it. The implications of these findings for practitioners and researchers with interests in mediation are discussed.