EVALUATING PARENTING COORDINATION: DOES IT REALLY WORK? Institute for Court Management ICM Fellows Program 2015-2016 Court Project Phase May 2016 Serpil Ergun Chief Magistrate Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Division of Domestic Relations Cleveland, Ohio ii This project and paper were prepared by the author in her personal capacity. The views and opinions expressed within the paper are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the Division of Domestic Relations, the Ohio Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, or the Ohio Association of Magistrates. iii Acknowledgments Undertakings like this never succeed without help and my indebtedness to the many others who assisted in bringing this project to fruition is enormous. My debt starts with gratefully acknowledging the research participants who were willing to candidly share their experience out of a genuine desire to make things better for families, and who understand that enduring solutions do not always lie within the courts. Special thanks to the judges of the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court, the Hon. Cheryl S. Karner, the Hon. Leslie Ann Celebrezze, the Hon. Diane M. Palos, the Hon. Rosemary G. Gold, and the Hon. Francine Goldberg; Court Administrator James L. Viviani; and the National Center for State Courts’ Institute for Court Management for giving me the opportunity to undertake this research project. Above all, I am grateful to Judge Palos, a champion of judicial education and professional development, for her unconditional support. I deeply appreciate the contributions of my colleagues at the court who willingly gave their time to enrich this effort while carrying on with their own work: my fellow magistrates who offered their thoughts on this subject; staff attorney Sharon Ditko-Bevione who checked over each and every statistic and citation; Magistrate Eileen Gerity for her frank and stimulating comments, and for encouraging me to study this topic in the first place; my scheduler cum research assistant extraordinaire Christina Brown and scheduler Jessica Walsh for fielding phone calls; Magistrate Ann Weatherhead for her keen edits; Magistrate Marie Hartmann for last minute proofreading; Director Mark Felber for fielding all my program questions; and psychologist Dr. Frank Ezzo for providing needed guidance from time to time to a research novice. I owe you all. A thousand thank yous are not enough to express my heartfelt gratitude to my multi- talented friend, Magistrate James Tanner, who cheerfully brainstormed with me, collected data, iv created graphics, and left no stone unturned to present this information meaningfully, all while he was dreaming of retirement. You are a marvel. I also wish to acknowledge early parenting coordination groundbreakers Robert Wistner, who reached into the distant past to provide valuable background on parenting coordination in Ohio, and Robert Beckerman, for providing his unpublished manuscript written back when parenting coordination did not even have a name. I am most grateful to Sharla Johnston and the outstanding staff at the Cleveland Law Library. They were beyond gracious in helping me promptly find every single article and book I asked for, even after I promised I was through. My sincere appreciation to my project advisor, Deborah Smith, who held my hand through this, for her encouragement and thoughtful critiques to help refine my presentation. How lucky was I to have been assigned to you! I also thank the exceptional educators and staff at the National Center for State Courts – Dan Straub, John Meeks, Amy McDowell, Mary McQueen, Nicole Waters, Brian Ostrom, Dale Kasparek, Jesse Rutledge, and Tom Clarke – for opening my eyes to what high performance really means, and especially, challenging me to think about the purposes and responsibilities of courts in a new way. Mary, thank you for helping us keep in mind the beautiful ideal that is Magna Carta and the nobler side of justice. I cannot imagine going through this experience without the ICM Class of 2016 who came from all over the world and left as friends. Thank you to Toni Grainer who helped make a long three weeks away from home as comfortable as it could be. In the end, none of this would be possible without the support of my family who endured long absences and fended on their own while I indulged my obsession. Thank you from the v bottom of my heart to my husband, Doug Andrews, who picked up the slack and devoted his scarce time to provide invaluable comments; my daughters Mallory, Courtney, and Shelby who were amazed, and then again not so very surprised, that their mom chose to “go back to school”; and my sister, brother, and sister-in-law, Gulchin, Seda, and Marina, who understand what Mom and Dad taught us about the importance of being curious. vi vii Table of Contents Acknowledgments……….……………………………………………………………........ iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………..…………… vii List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………… xii List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………. xiii Abstract………………………..…………………………………………………………… xv Introduction……………….……………………………………………………………….. 1 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………..……... 10 Effect of Parental Conflict on Children……………………………………………. 10 Meaning of “High Conflict”……………………………………………………….. 12 Rise of Alternatives to Traditional Court Process in Family Cases……………….. 16 Development of Parenting Coordination…………………………………………... 20 Features of Parenting Coordination………………………………………………... 24 The Spread of Parenting Coordination…………………………………………….. 29 Development of Parenting Coordination in Ohio………………………………….. 30 Research Support – Does the Data Support the Theory? …………………………. 35 Methods……………………………………………….……………………………………. 42 Changes in Court Usage…………………………………………………………… 42 Opinions of Parents, Attorneys, and Parenting Coordinators……………………… 48 Findings…………………………………………………………………………………….. 52 Changes in Court Usage Case Data………………………………………………... 52 Parenting Coordination Cases…………………………………………... 52 High Conflict Control Group Cases…………………………………….. 54 viii Comparison of Parenting Coordination and High Conflict Control Group Cases…………………………………………………………….. 56 Opinions of Parents, Attorneys, and Parenting Coordinators Data………………... 60 Parent Opinion Survey………………………………………………… 60 Attorney Opinion Survey……………………………………………… 69 Parenting Coordinator Opinion Survey……………………………….. 76 Conclusions and Recommendations………………...……………………………………. 91 Conclusion 1: Parenting coordination seems to be very effective in reducing litigation……………………………………………………………………………. 92 Recommendation 1.1: Cases in which parenting coordinators have been appointed should be closely followed to determine if litigation decreases and to identify if any decrease is attributable to parenting coordination or some other variable……………………………………. 93 Conclusion 2: Parenting coordination resolves disputes and prevents parental conflict from escalating into “legal” conflict but does not necessarily improve the co-parenting relationship.................................................................................... 903 Recommendation 2.1: Family law professionals should share a realistic view of what the parenting coordination process can accomplish given the nature of the parents’ relationship and willingness and capacity to cooperate………………………………………………………………... 95 Conclusion 3: Parents lack understanding about the proper role of a parenting coordinator.………………………………………………………………………… 95 Recommendation 3.1: The Court should ensure that parents are fully informed about the parenting coordination process and provide parents with standardized comprehensive information about parenting coordination…………………………………………………………….. 96 Conclusion 4: Parenting coordinators would benefit from learning opportunities tailored for the parenting coordinator role…………….…………………………... 96 Recommendation 4.1: The Court should work together with the legal community to provide continuing education designed specifically for parenting coordinators and opportunities for parenting coordinators to develop a community of practice………………………………………. 97 ix Conclusion 5: Family law professionals are unfamiliar with the role of the parenting coordinator………………………………………………………………. 97 Recommendation 5.1: Education and training about the parenting coordination process should be provided to judges, magistrates, attorneys, mediators, and custody evaluators…………………………… 98 Conclusion 6: There is a lack of professional diversity among parenting coordinators………………………………………………………………………... 98 Recommendation 6.1: The practice of parenting coordination should be promoted among mental health and conflict resolution professionals. 99 Conclusion 7: Court oversight is needed to support the legitimacy and success of parenting coordination……………………………………………………………... 99 Recommendation 7.1: Protocols should be instituted for making parenting coordination appointments and entering them in the case management system…………………………………………………….. 101 Recommendation 7.2: Parenting coordinators should be required to report regularly as to usage of parenting coordination, the progress made, and problems encountered………………………………………. 101 Recommendation 7.3: A procedure should be developed for distributing parenting coordinator appointments………………………. 101 Recommendation 7.4: Attorneys and parents should be informed of parenting coordinators participating in the Court’s program…………… 101 Conclusion 8: Issues related to parenting