PARENTING COORDINATION: HELPING AND HINDERING FACTORS IN THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST by MARIANNE COTTINGHAM A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Master of Counselling Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard ………………………………………………………………. Dr. Marvin McDonald, Ph.D.; Thesis Supervisor ……………………………………………………………… Dr. Bart Begalka, Ed.D.; Second Reader ……………………………………………………………….. Dr. Jeff Chang, Ph.D.; External Examiner TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY February, 2018 © Marianne Cottingham FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the factors in parenting coordination that helped or hindered the successful resolution of family conflict in the child’s best interests. The role of the parenting coordinator (PC) is a hybrid role that combines psychology, conflict resolution, and arbitration to help parents who remain in high conflict following separation and divorce. Using the enhanced critical incident technique (ECIT), eight PCs from the British Columbia Parenting Coordinator Roster Society (BCPCRS) were interviewed. The interview was semi-structured and an interview guide was used. Participants were asked about helping and hindering factors in resolving conflict, as well as what other people, supports or programs they would have found helpful in their role as PCs. Data was collected following the ECIT protocol, and nine credibility checks were completed to strengthen the reliability and validity of the study. A total of 197 initial factors formed six helping categories, four hindering categories, and five wish-list categories. The categories were organized into groupings: Ethics and Collaboration, Information and Resources, Relationship with the Legal System, Parent Factors, and PC Factors. The results covered a wide range of aspects of parenting coordination including PCs process for resolving conflict, and the context and dynamics in which PCs conduct their work. This is the first study on parenting coordination in British Columbia; the findings contribute to a greater understanding of the role for both professionals and the public. Areas of complexity in parenting coordination and areas of further growth for this role were identified and discussed. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 Situating Parenting Coordination in British Columbia ............................................2 Research Focus ........................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................7 Parenting Coordination ...........................................................................................8 Nuts and Bolts of Parenting Coordination .................................................9 History of Parenting Coordination ..........................................................10 Parenting Coordination in Canada ..........................................................12 Recourse of the Parties ............................................................................12 PC Process and Ethical Concerns ...........................................................13 Establishing the Need for Parenting Coordination ................................................15 Formalizing the Role ...............................................................................17 Effects of High Interparental Conflict on Children ...............................................18 Defining High Conflict ...........................................................................20 Frequency of High Conflict ....................................................................20 Impact of High Interparental Conflict on Children .................................21 Parental Denigration ................................................................................28 Education and Conflict Management ....................................................................29 Identified Factors in Reducing Conflict ..................................................30 PC Research in the Field .......................................................................................32 The DC Program .....................................................................................32 Other PC Studies .....................................................................................33 Parent Traits and Perspectives of PC Intervention .................................41 iii FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT Future Research .....................................................................................................43 Conclusion ............................................................................................................43 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................45 Enhanced Critical Incident Technique (ECIT) .......................................................45 Use of ECIT in this Study .....................................................................................46 Rationale for ECIT ................................................................................................48 Paradigm ...............................................................................................................50 Survey Versus Chosen Methodology ....................................................................51 Participants ............................................................................................................52 Description of the Sample ............................................................................. 53 Inclusion Criteria ....................................................................................53 Exclusion Criteria ...................................................................................53 Recruitment Strategy ...............................................................................54 Procedures for Data Collection ...............................................................55 Background Information .........................................................................56 Enhanced Critical Incident Interview .....................................................56 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................57 Credibility Checks ..................................................................................59 Cross-checking by participants. .............................................59 Independent extraction of incidents. ......................................60 Placing incidents into categories by an independent judge. ...61 Participation rates. ..................................................................61 Exhaustion in the data. ...........................................................62 Theoretical agreement. ...........................................................62 Interview fidelity. ...................................................................63 Eliciting expert opinions. .......................................................63 Consultation with Parenting Coordinators ............................................................63 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS .................................................................................................65 Helping Categories ................................................................................................67 Helping 1: Obtaining Information to Serve the Best Interests of Children .................................................................................................67 iv FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 1A: Information obtained directly from third parties ..............68 1B: Information obtained through observation and research ..68 1C: Obtaining the child’s views. .............................................69 Helping 2: Collaboration ............................................................................... 69 2A: Collaborating with the parties’ lawyers. ..........................70 2B: Collaborating with peers (PCs). .......................................70 2C: Collaboration with other professionals. ...........................71 Helping 3: PC Strategies ..........................................................................71 3A: Strategies used during meetings with parents. ................72 3B: Consensus-building phase. ...............................................72 3C: Determination making phase. ..........................................73 3D: Strategies used throughout parenting coordination. ........74 3E: Billing strategies. .............................................................75 Helping 4: Helpful Parental Behaviours, Characteristics and Attitudes ..76 Helping 5: Relationship with the Legal System .....................................77 5A: Determination making ability. .........................................77 5B: Court understanding and court orders. .............................78 Helping 6: PC Understanding of Family Systems, Dynamics and Psychological Development ....................................................................78 Hindering Categories ............................................................................................79 Hindering 1: Individual, Relational, and Situational Dynamics Between Parents That Hinder Successful Resolution of Conflict ..........79 1A: Emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues. ..80 1B: Hindering parental attitudes and behaviours. ..................81 1C: Circumstances that increase opportunity for conflict. .....82 Hindering 2: Financial Barriers ..............................................................82 Hindering 3: Other Professionals Being Ineffective or Not Collaborative ....................................................................................83 Hindering 4: PC Challenges and Mistakes .............................................84 Wish List Categories .............................................................................................84 Wish List 1: Resources and Additional Professional Services ................ 85 v FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 1A: Involvement of cooperative professionals. .......................85 1B: Availability and knowledge of cost effective services. ....86 Wish List 2: Specific and Advanced PC Trainings ................................... 86 Wish List 3: Ethics Through Collaboration ............................................87 3A: Peer consultation and learning opportunities. .................87 3B: Enhanced PC ethics and practice standards. ....................88 Wish List 4: Clarity in court orders and parenting plans ........................89 Wish List 5: Increased Understanding and Education About the PC Role ...................................................................................................89 Integrative Summary .............................................................................................90 Collaboration and Ethics ............................................................................... 90 Information and Resources ........................................................................... 92 Relationship with the Legal System ............................................................ 93 Parent Factors ................................................................................................. 94 PC Factors ....................................................................................................... 97 Successful Resolution of Conflict .......................................................................102 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................103 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ..........................................................................................106 Summary of the Research Problem .....................................................................106 Cross-Validation with the Literature ...................................................................107 Factors that Impact Resolution of Conflict ...............................................107 Strategies Used with Parents .................................................................109 Process and Context ..............................................................................111 Education for Stakeholders ...................................................................112 New Findings ...................................................................................................... 113 Growth in a New Role ........................................................................... 113 Relationship with the Court ........................................................................115 Ethics ....................................................................................................117 Assessment and Case Planning .............................................................121 Assessing Clients and Resulting Aims .................................................124 Practical Implications ..........................................................................................127 vi FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT Counselling Psychology ......................................................................................128 Strengths and Limitations ...................................................................................129 Future Research ....................................................................................................130 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................131 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................133 Appendix A: Sample PC Background Information Form ...............................................144 Appendix B: Sample Informed Consent Form ...............................................................146 Appendix C: Sample Interview Guide ............................................................................148 Appendix D: Sample Non-Disclosure Agreement for Transcriptionists..........................151 Appendix E: Sample Initial Contact Email .....................................................................152 Appendix F: Sample Debriefing Email ...........................................................................153 Appendix G: Situating the Researcher ............................................................................154 Appendix H: Contributed Factors by Participants ..........................................................159 Appendix I: Parenting Coordinator Requirements ......................................................... 160 vii FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Background of Parenting Coordinators .......................................................53 Table 2 Categories Organized by Grouping .............................................................66 Table 3 Categories with Grouping Descriptions ....................................................100 Table 4 Helping Factors ..........................................................................................108 Table 5 Hindering Factors ......................................................................................109 viii FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people whom I would like to acknowledge for their contributions to my project. To my Family: Thank you for the various ways in which you have supported me throughout this lengthy and intensive undertaking. I appreciate the patience you afforded me, the encouraging words, and the willingness to step up and take care of things when I was unable to. Dr. Marvin McDonald (Supervisor): Thank you for challenging me to question my every move, and to step outside of my prior ways of thinking. This has made me stretch, and has become a transferable gift that has already made its way into other areas of my life. Thank you also for countering the many challenges by celebrating my successes, and pointing out my attempts to make this project richer. I deeply value your contributions throughout this process. Dr. Bart Begalka (Second Reader): In no way were you “second” when it came to your efforts and vast contributions to my project from start to finish. The time you invested in this from beginning to end was invaluable to me. From the meetings to discuss ideas, to reviewing content, to your expertise in the areas of separation and divorce – thank you, not just for your willingness to get involved in my project, but for your immersion and investment in it. Dr. Jeff Chang (External Examiner): Your attendance in person at my oral defense is something I deeply valued; thank you for making the trek from Calgary! Your insights, challenges, suggestions and words of encouragement have added depth to this project and they are so appreciated. I feel fortunate to have had such an involved and knowledgeable external examiner! Christina: Thank you for being a constant source of encouragement, and for your technical expertise. Your efforts and help were invaluable at a critical point in my project, and I credit you with helping me see this through from start to finish. Research Team: Thank you for being willing to contribute, especially when schedule constraints meant that I was often not able to reciprocate. Thank you to those who helped through contributions such as editing, transcription, and polishing. Your expertise and encouragement throughout were helpful and appreciated! FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Divorce and separation rates in society today are influenced by many factors. Powerful and influential media messages, legal trends, and a culture that praises women’s independence (including their widespread entry into the workforce) have all contributed to an increase in divorce and separation rates (Katz, 1994; Kelly, 2012; Shiono & Quinn, 1994). Many lay people and professionals have recognized the negative impact of divorce on children, and have been looking for ways to mitigate the negative impact of parental separation or divorce (Demby, 2016; Johnston, 1994). Parenting coordination is one of the proposed ways to help children from highly conflicted separated families (Deutsch, Coates, & Fieldstone, 2008). Parenting coordination is a long-term alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process in which the parenting coordinator (PC) may assist parties once there is a parenting coordination agreement or an order in place. By working with the parents after an order is in place, PCs have the opportunity to mitigate certain negative aspects of parental separation on children by managing and containing parental conflict (Demby, 2016; Henry, Fieldstone, & Bohac, 2009). PCs work with parents in various capacities, with the sole mandate of the child’s best interests guiding their work (Kruk, 2013). The departure from an intact family unit has associated risk factors for children, but the impact of ongoing conflict between parents greatly increases risk for children (Birnbaum & Bala, 2010; Grych & Fincham, 1999). Particular concern has been raised by professionals over a small percentage of families that separate and remain in high conflict for years following the dissolution of their relationship (Kelly, 2012; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Sullivan, 2008). For children who come from separated families, a number of risk factors are increased including the potential for children to experience behavioural problems, difficulty with social interactions, fear FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 2 of parental abandonment, mood and emotional difficulties, substance abuse issues, low school achievement, among many other adjustment problems (Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; Morewitz, 2016). Further, children whose parents remain in high conflict following separation are at even greater risk of these difficulties (Birnbaum & Bala, 2010) as the separation of an intact family can cause both short term and long term adjustment problems in children. It is estimated that somewhere between 8% to 25% of couples remain in high conflict between two and four years following their separation/divorce (Heatherington, Cox & Cox,1982; King & Heard, 1999; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). Indicative of the highly conflicted nature of these parents, the courts estimate that approximately 10% of the cases in family law courts occupy 90% of the court’s time (Neff & Cooper, 2004). Concern has been raised for the well-being of the children who are caught in the middle of this ongoing conflict (Kelly, 2012). Parenting coordination is a unique intervention that was developed with these children in mind (Higuchi & Lally, 2014; Sullivan, 2008). Situating Parenting Coordination in British Columbia At the intersection of psychology and law, ADR processes have gained in popularity, particularly over the last 40 years (Boyarin, 2012). These ADRs allow for a less adversarial approach to resolving family law matters, rather than litigating all matters of dispute (Higuchi & Lally, 2014; Kelly, 2000, Kitzmann & Emery, 1994). As set out in the Guidelines for Parenting Coordination published by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), parenting coordination is defined as follows: Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 3 disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract. The overall objective of parenting coordination is to assist high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan, to monitor compliance with the details of the plan, to resolve conflicts regarding their children and the parenting plan, and to protect and sustain safe, healthy and meaningful parent-child relationships. Parenting coordination is a quasi-legal, mental health, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management and sometimes decisionmaking functions. (2005, p. 2) PCs may assist parties by creating guidelines for implementation of an order, supporting communication between parties, identifying and creating strategies for resolving conflicts between the parties, and providing information and resources to improve communication and parenting skills (Demby, 2016; Hayes, 2010). The objectives of parenting coordination are clear in the BCPCRS guidelines (2013), and stated in the overview of parenting coordination: The objective of the parenting coordination process is to assist parents in high conflict circumstances to protect and sustain safe, healthy and meaningful parent-child relationships by a) Educating parents about children’s needs and the effect of parental conflict on them; b) Implementation of parenting plans; c) Monitoring compliance with the details of the plan; and FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT d) 4 Resolving conflicts regarding the children and the parenting plan in a timely manner. (p. 1) In British Columbia, PCs can also make determinations within a specified scope (described in the legislation at section 18 of the British Columbia Family Law Act) that are binding on the parents. Parents can apply for relief from the court if they are not satisfied with a determination made by a PC, but the judge must find that the PC acted outside his or her jurisdiction or made an error in fact, an error in law, or an error in mixed fact and law to overturn the determination made by a PC. Giving the PC this arbitrative decision-making power was intended to settle day-to-day parenting disputes in a timely and more cost effective manner than would be achieved if the parents were to apply to the court for relief (Sullivan, 2008). By giving parents quick access to a neutral decision maker, the existence of the PC can decrease the conflict children are exposed to when litigation is continually pursued by parents (Hayes, 2010). There has been limited research on parenting coordination in North America. Many different models of parenting coordination are practiced depending on the location. For those jurisdictions that practice a different model than is practiced in British Columbia, it is difficult to generalize the results of the research to British Columbia. Some studies, particularly those which focused on demographics, were helpful for attaining a general idea of which professionals are practicing parenting coordination in North America. Parenting coordination has been practiced in British Columbia since 2007, but to date no research has been conducted. Given that parenting coordinators are working with high conflict parents and the sole mandate of the PC is to consider the child’s best interests, parenting coordinators fulfil a unique role. As mentioned, parenting coordination provides the framework for intervention and access to parents whose children are among a vulnerable population because they are at increased risk FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 5 of adjustment difficulties (Demby, 2016; Hayes, 2010). PCs have the potential to mitigate some of the risk factors for high conflict families by educating and guiding the parents in conflict resolution. However, without research on parenting coordination, it is difficult to discern what kind of impact, if any, that PCs are having when working with this segment of the population. According to J. P. Boyd (personal communication, May 16, 2016) it is not possible to know if PC work is effective, and what the results are for those parents (and their children) who engage in parenting coordination versus those who do not. Research is necessary to investigate all aspects of this role, including how it is being practiced in British Columbia. Research Focus The literature consistently shows that children are at greater risk of adjustment problems when their parents remain in high conflict (Kruk, 2013; McCoy, George, Cummings, & Davies, 2013; Rowen & Emery, 2014; Sbarra & Emery, 2008). For this study, meant to be a first step in exploring parenting coordination in British Columbia, I interviewed eight parenting coordinators. The question I set out to answer was: what factors do parenting coordinators report as having helped and hindered them in guiding families to successfully resolve conflict in the child’s best interests? Determining what helps and hinders the professionals in resolving conflict has the potential to positively impact children from separated families (Cummings & Davies, 1994). As an early exploratory study attempting to gain insight into how the professionals are practicing, this study is meant to be a first step in PC research. Given the potential for these professionals to positively impact the well-being of children, this is a worthwhile and necessary role to research from a counselling psychology approach; understanding how professionals can help parents to mitigate the risk factors for their children amidst separation of the family unit is applicable and useful information for counsellors. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 6 As pointed out by Kruk (2013), the children’s best interest doctrine can be interpreted and practiced in a variety of ways. This research study seeks to understand the ways in which PCs are interpreting and practicing this doctrine. The findings in this study identify many of the techniques and strategies used by PCs, the helping and hindering factors, and further supports and recommendations that may offer improvement for the future of parenting coordination. Any improvement to this service has the potential to further mitigate psychological risk factors for children from separated families, and is a worthwhile endeavour. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Parenting coordination is a long-term service offered to parents (by agreement or by court order) who remain in high conflict following their separation. Mental health and legal professionals in BC who meet the required criteria outlined in the Family Law Act (2011) can be parenting coordinators (See Appendix I, Parenting Coordinator Requirements). Parents have many services available to them that offer assistance in the settlement of their custody and parenting disputes. Few services, however, provide assistance to parents once a parenting schedule is in place. Parenting coordinators (PCs) strive to contain interparental conflict in a number of ways, one of which is to offer parents timely access to a neutral decision maker. There has been minimal research conducted on parenting coordination in North America and no research conducted in BC at this time. The literature that is available on the subject is largely published by those professionals involved in the development and practice of parenting coordination (Higuchi & Lally, 2014). This chapter begins with a discussion on the history and framework of the parenting coordination role in Canada. The effects of high conflict divorce on children are also discussed, including associated risk factors and how continued interparental conflict increases risk of adjustment problems for children (Johnston, 1994). These risk factors, along with the challenging atmosphere which exists for children of separation or divorce, have shaped the framework of parenting coordination. For the purposes of this document, I used various characteristics to distinguish high conflict from regular conflict. It is expected that there will be some conflict between parents after separation, but “high conflict” when used in the context of this document is conflict with specific characteristic that persists in excess of two years post-separation (Kelly, 2012; Maccoby FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 8 & Mnookin, 1992). High conflict is characterized by externalizing behaviours on the part of one or both parents such as hostility, anger, contempt, and aggression. It also includes the dynamics between parents such as a low level of collaboration or cooperation, domestic violence incidents and accusations, inability or unwillingness to problem solve or reach agreement on child-related issues, and non-compliance with agreements/court orders and parenting plans (Higuchi & Lally, 2014; Sullivan, 2008). The vulnerability of these children was recognized, and consequently, PCs have a mandate to consider only the best interests of the child (Beck, Putterman, Sbarra, & Mehl, 2008). The literature discussing high conflict divorce informs how and why PC work has the potential to be a protective factor for children (Davies, Hentges, Coe, Martin, Sturge-Apple, Cummings, 2016; Demby, 2016). Empirical research supports the belief that high interparental conflict has negative effects on children, and that it is effective to educate parents about aspects of interparental conflict (Fauber, Forehand, McCombs, & Wierson, 1990; Wolchik, Schenk, & Sandler, 2009). Parent education is part of the PC role, and the goal of the PC is to prevent further conflict and minimize further harm to the children caught in conflict (Beck et al., 2008). Parenting Coordination Kelly (2014b) states that the parenting coordination process is “intended for highly conflicted parents, who disproportionately consume the resources and time of family courts in the years after divorce and drain personal financial resources and emotional energy that could be more effectively directed toward the children’s well-being” (p. 18). The PC works in a challenging atmosphere and is responsible for educating parents, mediating disagreements, implementing strategies for various aspects of parenting, and making arbitrary decisions if necessary (Kelly, 2014b). The specialization of the role is necessary; the professional must be an FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 9 expert in dealing with this difficult population because the continued high conflict between parents can have lasting negative effects on the children of these parents (Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008). Nuts and Bolts of Parenting Coordination Individual PCs have substantial latitude in the way they practice. Based on their model of practice and each individual PC case, PCs determine how often they meet with and/or communicate with the parents. Meetings can take place in person with parents together or separate, by phone, or through an interactive platform such as videoconferencing (Deutsch, 2014). Some considerations for the medium of communication include geographical distance, PC style, intensity of parental conflict, conflict dynamics including power differential, and domestic abuse. If there is a power differential between parents, a PC may choose to meet separately with parents in person, use phone or videoconferencing, or use an in-person shuttle format in which the parents are in separate rooms and the PC moves between the rooms to negotiate. Communicating with parents by email is also common. The PC has discretion about the role of children in the process. Often, PCs will have a child specialist meet with the child and then the PC will speak with the child specialist to ascertain details about the child and/or their views. PCs also have the option to meet and include children in the PC process themselves, rather than use a child specialist to facilitate that role (Kelly, 2014a). Some considerations for whether or not PCs meet and involve the child in the process include the following: the child’s age, if there is a child specialist appointed to work with the child, the professional background and experience of the PC, PC preference, the nature of disputed issues between parents, and how many professionals and processes the child has been exposed to. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 10 In British Columbia, the Family Law Act Regulation (2012) specifies who can act as a parenting coordinator and the training requirements for the role, as well as the scope of the PC (a copy of the Family Law Act Regulation, section six can be found in Appendix I). In British Columbia, PCs can arbitrate within the specified scope. The BCPCRS has drafted a standard PC agreement and PCs have the option to edit parts of this agreement; changing the standard agreement is at the discretion of each PC. There are various reasons for these edits, some of which include the following: the language used in the court order appointing the PC; the individual PC preferences; if the PC is appointed by the parties rather than the court, the parties may want to alter the scope of the PCs arbitrary powers and/or the issues on which the PC will arbitrate. The PC process is not confidential for communications between the parties, their children, the PC and other relevant parties, or the PC and the court subject to the legal limits on confidentiality, permitted professional services, and the express provisions of the authorizing instrument (BCPCRS, 2012, p. 5). The guidelines are explicit that the PC must not communicate with the court without the knowledge of all parties to the PC contract. This transparency between the PC, the parties, and the court is a distinguishing characteristic of the parenting coordination service. History of Parenting Coordination Parenting coordination began in separate locations in the US as professionals working in the field of family law realized that the adversarial court system was not necessarily the best place to settle child related disputes (Higuchi & Lally, 2014). Professionals had concerns about the children’s well-being and the children’s involvement in the conflict. In the mid-1980s in Northern California, a group of mental health professionals were asked by the court or by family FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 11 law professionals to assist in cases where high conflict existed and there was disagreement between the parties over child related issues (Kelly, 2000). Around the same time, an attorney in Colorado decided that the court room was not an appropriate place to settle child related disputes, and started using a mediation-arbitration model to help families settle these disputes, with the best interests of their children at the forefront (Coates, 2015). Kelly (2000) proposed that the passage of no-fault divorce laws and the trend shift of the 20th century are two factors which preceded the creation of parenting coordination interventions. Shifting social trends of the 20th century included an increase in the number of premarital births and an increasing number of couples opting to cohabit (Shiono & Quinn, 1994). In the 1960s, the divorce rate increased dramatically and by the 1980s, the divorce rate had more than doubled (Kelly, 2014b). Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that families with young children were likely to be higher in conflict regarding daily parenting than were those families with older children, and were more likely to litigate. These findings spurred concern for the children from the professionals involved in these parenting disputes, and the professionals proposed that there had to be other ways to help these children (Deutsch et al., 2008; Kelly, 2000; Kitzmann & Emery, 1994; Pruett, Williams, Insabella & Little, 2003). A number of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes were developed and were viewed by professionals and the courts as better suited approaches to family law disputes compared to the traditional the court process (Kelly, 2000). Parents were given options that were less adversarial and allowed them to settle their disputes faster and for less financial cost than an adversarial court process would require (Katz, 1994). Many of these ADRs supported parents in settling their disputes, including custody disagreements, but no professional role existed to help parents with implementing a parenting plan or schedule after it was made. Parenting FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 12 coordination sought to fill that void in the services offered to separating families (BelcherTimme, Shorey, Belcher-Timme, & Gibbings, 2013). Parenting Coordination in Canada Parenting coordination began in Canada following the emergence of PC work in Colorado and California (Fidler & Epstein, 2008). The authors note that “there is growing recognition in Canada that courts are not the suitable place to resolve most custody and access disputes” (p. 56) and thus, there is room for alternative dispute resolution processes. PCs have both a mediation and arbitration function based on provincial regulations for arbitration in both Ontario and BC. In Quebec, PCs do not have an arbitrative function. Recourse of the Parties If a party is unsatisfied with the decision of the parenting coordinator, he or she can appeal that decision to the court (Fidler & Epstein, 2008). Many times, the occasion for the decision and the consequences of that decision (holiday time, for example) have already passed by the time a party could get into court to appeal the decision, and for that reason, appeal of the decisions to the court do not happen often. In order to overturn a decision of the parenting coordinator, the court must find that the PC erred in law, erred in fact (or in a combination of these), or that the PC acted outside of his or her authority. Alternatively, the parent could argue that the PC violated natural justice; “natural justice” (also referred to as procedural fairness) requires that the PC treat the parties fairly during arbitration and in line with the arbitration act, that the process be transparent, and that each party must have an opportunity to be heard and know the case of the other side. If the court were to find an obstruction in natural justice, it can overturn decisions made by the PC. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 13 PC Process and Ethical Concerns The PC is responsible for screening the parties for power imbalances and domestic violence to determine if parenting coordination is an appropriate intervention. In cases of a judge ordering participation in parenting coordination, the judge is supposed to satisfy that requirement (Fieldstone, Carter, King & McHale, 2011). Parties enter into a signed agreement or contract with a parenting coordinator that describes the role of the PC and the scope of authority they have (Fidler & Epstein, 2008). The engagement of the PC is either voluntary or court ordered. Parties are encouraged to seek independent legal advice prior to signing the PC contract. Contracts in Canada have a typical duration between twelve and twenty-four months. When the parties bring a dispute to the PC, the process typically begins with consensus building and if it is not resolved by agreement, then the process moves into arbitration (Fidler & Epstein, 2008). The PC must make explicit to the parties when consensus building stops and arbitration begins; however, the PC can rely on information obtained during or before the consensus building phase when the PC moves into the arbitration phase. Consensus building is not the same as a formal mediation or arbitration process, in which the professional does not rely on information gathered outside of the specified process, among other differences (Barsky, 2011). The parenting coordination process is unique in this way, and the intent is to minimize duplication and ensure a speedy resolution to the dispute while keeping children’s best interests at the forefront. This process can be referred to as informal, rather than formal, since parenting coordination combines the roles in a hybrid fashion and parenting coordinators in British Columbia do not exclusively practice one function or the other. Barsky (2011) speaks of the importance of the PC being clear on their roles at various times, explaining those roles to clients, FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 14 and making a transparent transition from one role (say, mediator) to the decision-making role (arbitrator) during the resolution of disputes. Fidler and Epstein (2008) point out that because parties who engage in the PC process are high in conflict, it is likely that one or both parties will be dissatisfied and want to leave the process. The signed PC contract commits them to the process for the specified amount of time, and if the process was court ordered to begin with, there is recourse through the courts. At this time in British Columbia, the only option for parenting coordination continues to be through private service as there are no government or court programs that fund parenting coordination. It is not uncommon for many professionals to be involved with these high conflict families, such as mental health professionals working with the family as well as a parenting coordinator (Fidler & Epstein, 2008; Mandarino, Kline-Pruett, & Fieldstone, 2016). Initiation and implementation of effective team management by the PC so that these professionals are working together rather than working at cross-purposes is an important function of PCs (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2004). Collaboration between the professionals is necessary, but questions arise including how much information should be shared between professionals, how much information should be shared with the parents, and how much information should then be shared with the court. This requires the PC to strategically manage information, and this is a challenging element of PC work because there is no answer that applies to each and every case or situation. The authors note that the children’s best interests must prevail, and that will assist the PC in making decisions about the difficult questions raised about information sharing. Fidler and Epstein (2008) note that managing professional risk while also trying to meet the needs of children in disputes is a difficult task. Being a parenting coordinator puts FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 15 professionals at legal and ethical risk, and they are likely to face practical dilemmas due to the many hats a PC wears in his or her role. Parenting coordination does not fit into existing frameworks because it is a hybrid role, and as such, these authors call for specific legislation that governs PCs particularly in the areas of confidentiality, due process, concurrent roles, and informal hearings/gathering of evidence that occurs in parenting coordination. The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) guidelines (2006) are aspirational in nature, and specific legislation and practice standards are necessary to further identify the boundaries for PCs to practice within. Establishing the Need for Parenting Coordination Following the rapid increase in separation and divorce rates, the courts were overwhelmed with the influx of family law disputes and were not equipped with the necessary knowledge or resources to manage high conflict separation (Kelly, 2000). In cases of domestic violence between separating parents, the court system was often used as an abuse tactic that had the potential to put children into dangerous situations (Jouriles, Rosenfield, McDonald, & Mueller, 2014). For many years, a common presumption (referred to as the “maternal presumption”) was underlying many custody decisions in the court. The mother was considered the primary caregiver and would often be granted custody by default. Over many decades, the maternal presumption was challenged due to constitutional concerns by father’s rights groups, and by a variety of other stakeholders. Research in the field of child development that had been focused primarily on the mother-child relationship shifted to explore the contributions of fathers in their children’s lives (Pruett, 2000). Researchers began to look at the psychological, social, and emotional development as well as studying the father-child attachment relationships (Amato, FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 16 1987; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; Greif, 1979). The expansion of research to include the father-child relationship encouraged a well-rounded approach to parenting decisions, and contributed to new and uncharted ground in the court in regard to custody and access decisions (Kelly, 2012; Pruett, 2000). While research continued to accrue on this topic, advocates and stakeholders fought for the rights of the child, and laws began to change. The best interests of the child became the new standard, rather than the rights or gender of the parents (Kelly, 2012; Kruk, 2013). Kruk (2013) stated that the “notion of the best interests of the child reflect an orientation that attends to the deeper needs of children” (p. 95) in the dissolution of their family. The best interests of the child movement has been influenced by a multitude of factors that came together to create the standard that is now practiced. When the Family Relations Act (FRA) was replaced by the Family Law Act (FLA) in 2013 in BC, the language changed from the best interests of the child being paramount, to the best interests of the child being the only consideration in making decisions that impact the child. This is a mandate of PCs, and the FLA lists criteria (namely section 37) that must be considered when determining the best interests of the child. It is rarely disputed that the change to considering the children’s best interests was positive and necessary, but the change did come with its own share of difficulties (Kruk, 2013). The shift created an increase in shared parenting arrangements. Shared parenting arrangements increased the frequency of contact and communication between co-parents, thus increasing the opportunity for conflict among parents. Another difficulty that emerged with this doctrine was the question of who determines what is in the child’s best interest. It is often the case that the parents do not agree on this, and cite their own version of what they believe to be in their child’s best interest (Fotheringham, Dunbar, & Hensley, 2013; Sullivan, 2008). Fotheringham et al. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 17 (2013) state that because the best interests of the child typically consist of a list of considerations rather than a specific mandate, as it does in section 37 of the Family Law Act, the child’s best interests often get lost in the rhetoric of the parents’ statements and positions. Parenting coordinators in British Columbia have an arbitrative function permitted by the legislation, and in their decisions they must consider only the best interests of the child and cite reasons to support their decision. How the professionals determine the child’s best interest has been a source of debate for many years (Fotheringham et al., 2013). This research study is intended to clarify how PCs successfully resolve parenting disputes in the child’s best interest, and what their supporting reasons are. When parents remain in high conflict, their difficulties continue with the implementation of their parenting plan (Sullivan, 2008). Assisting with implementation is one of the intended roles of the PC (Kelly, 2012). The PC gives the parents timely access to a neutral decision maker who has knowledge of the family and can settle day-to-day parenting disputes (Demby, 2016; Sullivan, 2008). The standard PC contract published by the BC Parenting Coordinator Roster Society (BCPCRS) has a clause that the parties will not return to court to litigate matters that are within the PC’s scope of practice. This is intended to keep the parents engaged in the parenting coordination process rather than have them continue to litigate their disputes in an adversarial manner. Formalizing the Role In 2001, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), an international association, appointed a task force made up of professionals from various backgrounds to create standards of practice. Two years later, the report was published for Canada and the US (AFCC, 2003). Guidelines for Parenting Coordination were published by the task force in 2006, and FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 18 these guidelines continue to guide the practice of parenting coordination (AFCC, 2006). The American Psychological Association (APA) recognized that the number of psychologist PCs was growing, and appointed a Task Force for the Development of Parenting Coordination in 2008. In 2012, the APA published guidelines for parenting coordination directed towards psychologists, meant to guide them and to highlight the differences between parenting coordination and a traditional practice (APA, 2012). Both the APA the AFCC guidelines are not strict standards of practice, but rather are aspirational in nature (Kelly, 2014b). Based on the AFCC guidelines for parenting coordination (2006), three major roles and five functions of PCs are identified. The roles include (1) the implementation of a parenting plan; (2) ensuring compliance with the parenting plan; and (3) resolution of issues in a timely manner. The five functions of PCs include education, conflict management, assessment, case management/coordination, and decision-making (Kirkland, 2008). PCs in BC have a standard contract that defines their scope of work, including what they can and cannot do and the specific limits of their decision-making scope. They employ a variety of interventions including coaching, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and parent education (Demby, 2016; Fieldstone, Carter, King, & McHale, 2011; Hayes, 2010; Hayes, Grady, & Brantley, 2012). The specific interventions, reasons for decisions, and various strategies used by PCs remain largely unknown. One intention of this study was to gain both a broader understanding of the professional role in BC and the specific elements that help and hinder PCs in their work with family conflict. Effects of High Interparental Conflict on Children It is important to consider both the harsh environment that PCs operate in, as well as the challenges that they are up against when working with high-conflict parents. In order to FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 19 understand these influential factors it is necessary to discuss the nature of high conflict disputes and the behaviour of the parents. With the shift in social trends and family structure over the last fifty years, the trajectory of many children’s lives and development are charting new territory. Going through separation is often a major life transition for families, and sometimes parents remain embroiled in high-conflict for extended periods of time (Kelly, 2014b). Continued high interparental conflict can threaten children’s adjustment and increase internalizing and externalizing behaviours (Amato, 2001; Emery, 1999; Johnston et al., 2009). It is with these high-conflict cases that parenting coordination work is indicated, and it is particularly important for the children involved in these cases. Parenting coordinators attempt to contain the conflict between the parents (to shield children from it as much as possible), and allow them an outlet to work out their conflicts with a neutral third party (Demby, 2016). Kitzmann and Emery (1994) investigated child and family coping one year after mediated and litigated custody disputes. The sample consisted of N = 58, split into two groups: mediated cases (n = 32) and litigated cases (n = 26) with children who ranged from 2 to 17 years old. The researchers found that children benefit when their parents’ relationship is cooperative, but children may suffer when conflict continues. No correlation was found between the method used to settle the custody dispute (mediation or litigation) and the coping of children one year later. In light of their findings, the researchers proposed that a more intensive intervention may be necessary to help parents who continue to be in conflict. Parenting coordination is one such intensive intervention. If PCs can contain conflict and settle parenting disputes, parenting coordination is an intervention that has the potential to help child and family coping in the years following settlement (Sullivan, 2008). FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 20 Defining High Conflict The term “high conflict” does not have a universal definition. King and Heard (1999) note that “conflict can vary in its content, frequency, intensity, process, and resolution as well as in the extent to which children are directly exposed to it” (p. 387). Birnbaum and Bala (2010) note the dramatic increase of the term “high conflict” by Canadian judges, but a single definition is not clearly operationalized and the term is often used in an overly broad fashion. The authors state that it is necessary to distinguish between conflict that involves domestic violence, alienation, and/or one parent acting as the primary instigator for the conflict or abuse. Even without a standardized definition in place, however, it is clear the increase of the term high conflict in Canadian court records is reflective of the harsh environment that many children are exposed to. Cummings, Davies, and Campbell (2000) used the term “destructive conflict” to refer to disagreements that are hostile, aggressive, poorly resolved, and pertain to the child. It is this type of conflict that appears to be most closely associated with child maladjustment. Unfortunately, it is also the type of conflict that children tend to be exposed to when parents separate and divorce (Cummings & Davies, 1994). Although separated parents have physical separation and therefore less opportunity for conflict with their former partner, the disagreements that do occur are likely to be more intense than disagreements that occur within intact families (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000). Frequency of High Conflict Heatherington at al. (1982) found that approximately 20-25% of parents remained in high conflict in the 3 to 4 years following a separation/divorce. These findings were corroborated by Maccoby and Mnookin (1992). King and Heard (1999) reported a lower statistic, however, estimating that 8% to 12% of parents were still considered to be in high conflict within two to three years of a separation. It is possible that these differences in frequency may be reflective of FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 21 differences in definition or set criteria being used to define high conflict. Regardless, this range indicates that many children exist in high conflict situations following the breakdown of their family unit. Impact of High Interparental Conflict on Children Conceptual models developed to support the understanding of how observing interparental conflict can lead to child maladjustment emphasize children’s perception and interpretation of conflict as a primary determinant of the impact of interparental conflict (Grych, 2005). Grych (2005) found that because children remain the primary bond between their parents, it is child-related conflict that is the root of the conflict between separated parents. When disagreements of this nature occur, children may be particularly likely to blame themselves for causing these issues, or they may feel responsible for solving them. This puts children at greater risk for adjustment problems, and particularly internalizing problems. Internalizing problems include anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, self-blame, and poor psychological adjustment (Pruett, Williams, Insabella, & Little, 2003). Children report that seeing their parents fight is one of the most upsetting aspects of divorce, and that observing conflict directly has greater impact than conflict that occurs behind closed doors (Hetherington, 1999). If parents cannot handle conflict in a calm and respectful way that allows them to resolve the conflict effectively, the literature suggests that it is best for parents to not engage in conflict in the presence of their children (Davies et al., 2016). In these cases, PCs can work with families to achieve a parallel or disengaged relationship, rather than strive to achieve a cooperative co-parent relationship (Fieldstone et al., 2011). Theory and research identify triangulation as a particularly important concern for children of separated families. Children experience loyalty conflicts when they feel pulled to ally FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 22 with one parent against the other, when one parent uses them to gain information about the other parent, or when one parent puts the other parent down in the children’s presence (Grych, 2005). Although it is understandably difficult to contain their negative feelings toward their former spouse, Wolchick, Schenk, and Sandler (2009) state that parents need to work actively at putting their children’s needs first by supporting the child’s relationship with the other parent. They acknowledge, however, that in some cases, parents may not recognize the behaviours that do not support their children’s well-being, such as asking their children questions about the other parent or using them to send messages to the other parent. Part of the PC role is to educate parents about this type of behaviour that could be harmful to children (Kelly, 2012). There are many ramifications for children exposed to high interparental conflict that may have both short term and long term impact on children’s adjustment. Fabricius and Luecken (2007) studied college students who had experienced high interparental conflict when they were younger. The researchers found that these students reported higher levels of stress, distress, and painful feelings. They also found this group to have a greater likelihood of identifying as a child of divorce compared to other college students whose parents had also separated/divorced but were low in conflict. Beuhler, Anthony, Krishakumar, Stone, Gerard, & Pemberton (1997) found that the magnitude of the association between parental conflict and child maladjustment was almost two times as large as the effect reported for the impact of divorce on children. Thus, it is not simply the presence of conflict or the parents divorcing that impacts children most, it is the nature of the interparental conflict and the children’s exposure to the conflict that has the greatest negative impact on children. This finding is important for parents to know, and is necessary information for professionals who work with high conflict parents. According to the existing literature on PCs, educating parents about the harm of interparental conflict on children is an FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 23 intervention frequently used and is viewed by PCs as effective (Belcher-Timme et al., 2013; Hayes, 2010). Conflict may often cause one parent to be absent, or it may influence how close children are to their parents once they become adults. Block, Block, and Gjerde (1998) found that fathers are more likely to withdraw in the face of parental conflict. In later research, Pruett et al. (2003) found further support for the notion that interparental conflict is a predictor of father involvement, and higher conflict resulted in less father involvement for young children (under six years of age). Pruett (2000) found that children over the age of six years at the time of separation or divorce had more involved fathers, and these children showed better communication, day to day living skills, and socialization skills than those children in the same age group with less father involvement. The result of this dynamic is that when interparental conflict is high, it is more likely that young children will miss the positive benefits of father involvement such as improved daily life skills and socialization. In a study by Fauber, Forehand, McCombs Thomas, and Weirson (1990), a mediational model was used to assess the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment. The purpose of this research was to test the relationship between interparental conflict and parental adjustment through its impact on three aspects of parenting behavior: a decrease in consistent and effective discipline practices, parental withdrawal or rejection of child, and an increase in the use of psychological or emotional control. The researchers proposed the following hypothesis: much of the relationship between interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment can be explained through multiple aspects of parenting behaviour. This hypothesis received support in both divorced and intact samples. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 24 A number of quantitative instruments were used for data collection in this study, and participants consisted of N = 97 adolescents, along with their mothers and social studies teachers. Results showed that the relationship between parental conflict and rejection/withdrawal of the adolescent from the mother was considerably stronger in the divorced sample than in the intact sample in every analysis. Withdrawal in the divorced sample implies that the high levels of continued interparental conflict are likely associated with the perception of maternal rejection or distancing from the adolescent, and this is higher than would be expected from those families who are still intact. Parental rejection/withdrawal accounted for the most variance in the model, particularly in the divorced sample. This finding supports the indirect effect that interparental conflict may have on mothers after a divorce. Based on this finding, professionals working with interparental conflict need to be mindful of both the direct and indirect effects that impact children following separation or divorce (Fauber et al., 1990). One hypothesis that was a common focus in earlier studies was that interparental discord affected children by its impact on the parent-child relationship, creating an indirect effect on children. If parents are entrenched in conflict, they are more likely to become aggressive or hostile. In addition, parents may be inconsistent in their discipline and possibly withdrawn from the children. This argument has been partially supported in empirical research, but it does not fully explain the association between child adjustment and parental discord (Grych, 2005). Family systems theorists propose many indirect effects of interparental conflict on children. Parents may draw the children into parental conflict (triangulate them), for example, in an attempt at reducing the stress that is caused by marital discord (Grych, 2005). Triangulation can take multiple forms, such as parents coming together to blame their child for the conflict; FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 25 this is referred to as scapegoating the child. Another possibility is that one parent aligns with a child, creating an enmeshed relationship of the child with that parent and a distant relationship with the other parent. Grych (2005) notes that the latter pattern may be more likely to occur when parents are divorced, particularly if they are competing for the loyalty and affection of the children, using the children to pass messages, or putting down the other parent verbally in front of the child. Buchanan and Waizenhofer (2001) found that the latter type of triangulation mediated the association between adolescent adjustment and interparental conflict in divorced families. Dynamics like these can be addressed in parenting coordination, by the PC educating parents about the dangers of these behaviours and by developing parenting strategies to eliminate or minimize the involvement of children in conflict (Kelly, 2014b). Davies et al. (2016) conducted two longitudinal studies with family samples to distinguish the differences between types of interparental conflict. The strength of mediational pathways between parental conflict in hostile, disengaged, and uncooperative forms, children’s externalizing problems, and children’s emotional security were tested in these two multimethod studies. These studies are relevant because they measure the specific impact that conflict has on children of different ages, and the subsequent correlation of interparental conflict and children’s problems with emotional security and behaviour. In this research, children were observed during parental conflict and measured in areas such as avoidance of conflict, displays of worry or fear, anxious gesturing such as wringing of the hands, and verbal reactions to the conflict. A total of N = 243 families participated in the first study. Families participated in tasks with their children present, and the adults (including the children’s preschool teachers) filled out questionnaires at three measurement points. The researchers hypothesized that interparental FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 26 hostility would predict children’s emotional security and subsequently predict externalizing behaviour problems. Children’s emotional reactivity was measured by observations of vigilant and fearful distress. Signs of vigilance included children listening to parents in conflict, decreased play activities due to preoccupation with conflict, and voicing concern verbally. Fearful distress measured children’s display of anxiety, fear, worry, and upset in facial expression, posture, or gestured expressions. Examples of avoidance include the degree to which a child engages in withdrawal behaviours such as hiding one’s face during parental conflict, leaving the room or more subtle forms of disengagement such as avoiding eye contact or moving away from the interaction. Conduct problems were reported on by the teacher and the mother, and ADHD symptoms were reported on by only the teacher. The results of this study supported the hypothesis that different types of interparental conflict impacted children in different ways, and some types are more damaging than others. Hostility between parents had greater impact on children’s emotional security and subsequent externalizing problems than did a lack of cooperation or disengagement between parents. The researchers point out that although lack of cooperativeness or disengagement between parents did not impact children’s emotional security in the same way as interparental hostility, these parenting behaviours may increase psychopathology through other mechanisms. In the second study, interparental hostility, lack of cooperativeness, and parental disengagement as predictors of children’s insecurity and externalizing problems were tested with a group of young adolescents. The researchers held the same hypothesis as they did in the first study: parental hostility has a greater impact on children’s emotional security and externalizing behaviours than other parental behaviours. The sample size for study two was N = 263 families, FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 27 and teachers of the children participated by filling out questionnaires. Measurement of children’s emotional security was based on emotional reactivity, avoidance, and insecure and negative representations observed in the child during observation tasks. Child externalizing behaviours included conduct problems and hyperactivity, which were reported on by the teacher, and delinquency, which was reported on by the mother. The results of the second study were consistent with the first study with regards to interparental hostility having a significant impact on children’s insecurity and externalizing behaviours. In the second study, however, parental disengagement also predicted children’s insecurity and behaviour problems. The researchers suggest that this may be due to developmental differences in the children based on age, with older children being more sensitive to parental disengagement due to their ability to forecast what parental disengagement may mean for the security of the relationship and their future. This study by Davies et al. (2016) supports the findings by Grych (2005) that not all interparental conflict has the same impact on children, and therefore some specific types of conflict are most important to address with parents for the sake of their children. Specifically, this study showed that expressions of interparental hostility (both verbal and emotional expression) do threaten children’s emotional security and their subsequent externalizing behaviours. By measuring the responses of children during conflict, this study emphasizes the fact that children noticeably reacted poorly to hostile parental conflict, and the results of this exposure were evident in the child’s external behaviour. With each study that corroborates these findings, it becomes clear that parents who remain in high conflict need an intervention to manage this dynamic for the sake of their children’s adjustment and well-being. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 28 Parental Denigration Putting one parent down in front of the child is referred to as parental denigration. In a study by Rowen and Emery (2014), parental denigration is defined as “the behaviour of one parent disparaging or speaking negatively about the other parent in front of their children” (p. 165), and includes occasions when the other parent is either present or absent during the denigration. While parental denigration is referenced in the research on parental conflict (Grych, 2005 for example), it has not been widely studied as a construct empirically. In Rowen and Emery’s 2014 study, N = 648 undergraduate students completed a new measure of denigration, and questionnaires about parent-child relationships. The researchers intended to discover the frequency of parental denigration in married couples, never married, and divorced families. Additionally, the researchers wanted to know to what extent reports of denigration are correlated with measures of closeness between the pairs of parents. Reports of denigration were correlated with children’s reports of “feeling less mutual trust, poorer communication quality, and increased feelings of isolation from both parents” (Rowen & Emery, 2014, p. 174). The results of this study suggest that children exposed to denigration feel confusion and pain, leading to withdrawal from both parents. Additionally, when denigration was present, the participants reported feeling closer to the denigrated parent. Thus, parental denigration is a family systems issue, and its “occurrence and negative impact on the parent-child relationship hold implications for valuable interventions such as mediation, parenting education, and parenting coordination” (p. 175). It is noted by Rowen and Emery (2014) note that a possible limitation of their study is that the rates of parental denigration were relatively low in this sample, but data was still relevant to the population of high conflict parents, since the number of high conflict separation cases is FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 29 low compared to the general population. Despite being a minority, this is an important population because of the detrimental impact they have on children, and the fact that children from divorced families are more likely to experience parental denigration. Children reported that across all marital states, mothers engaged in certain types of denigration more frequently than fathers. It may be useful for professionals to educate parents who put down their co-parent that the research shows children exposed to parental denigration have less close relationships with both parents, and are more likely to feel closer to the denigrated parent than to the denigrator. By educating the parents about the lasting impacts of engaging in this damaging behaviour in front of the child, the PC has the opportunity to influence the future relationship between parents and their child should the parents choose to address their damaging behaviours (Sullivan, 2008). Education and Conflict Management Education and the management of conflict are important functions of the PC role that can contribute to shielding children from interparental conflict and reducing future conflict. In light of the research on the negative effects of interparental conflict on children, many education programs have been developed for the purpose of educating co-parents. Two roles of the PC include the education of co-parents, and the implementation of strategies and boundaries to prevent further conflict between parents (Fieldstone et al., 2011). Research to date indicates that it is the nature of the conflict that puts children at greater risk for adjustment problems rather than the mere existence of conflict between parents (Davies et al., 2016; Grych, 2005). Shielding the children from arguments, in spite of the conflict that may continue without their direct involvement, decreases the chance of adversely impacting children’s development. The indirect effects of interparental conflict on children may still be present and potentially FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 30 compromise the parent-child relationships, particularly when the conflict preoccupies the parents and they reject or withdraw from their child (Fauber et al., 1990). Given the general qualities of high conflict parents, however, management of conflict by the PC is necessary (Kelly, 2000) and is more likely to be achieved than the elimination of conflict. Identified Factors in Reducing Conflict Education programs that teach parents how to effectively manage conflict can benefit their children both directly (by reducing exposure to conflict) and indirectly by teaching parents how to support positive parent-child relationships. Parenting is an important mediator of the impact of interparental conflict in divorced families; thus enhancing the parent-child relationships may reduce the adverse effects of conflict (Wolchik et al., 2009). Wolchik et al. (2009) found that supportive parenting functions act as a protective factor for children from divorced families and may promote resiliency, even when parental discord is high. The researchers assert that because hostile conflict can undermine good parenting, focusing on parenting without also paying attention to resolving conflict more constructively is not likely to be as effective as targeting both processes. While parent education programs may not target both processes, parenting coordinators are in a position to target both by working directly with the parents and specific family dynamics. Conflict exists in intact marriages and between parents who have separated, and not all outcomes were negative for children. Some children were more at risk, and research that differentiated types of conflict associated with child adjustment was deemed valuable for understanding which children are at greatest risk (Kelly, 2014b). This research allowed for the development of specific interventions and education strategies for parents. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 31 Another helpful aspect of conflict prevention programs is in sensitizing parents to subtle ways that they may triangulate their children, and to help them to distinguish their own needs from their children’s needs (Wolchik et al., 2009). It is important to understand the exact nature of the conflict that exists in each case and to formulate strategies to work with the parents to best support the child’s best interests. PCs are in a position to work with each family on a long-term basis and get to know the dynamics of each family they work with. By understanding the family dynamics and nuances of interparental conflict, PCs can tailor their approach and education to consider the children in each family rather than using a cookie cutter approach that a parenting education program would offer (Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008). Owen and Rhoades (2012) conducted a study of co-parents N = 17 who were court ordered to attend a twelve-hour co-parenting intervention aimed at reducing interparental conflict following separation. Pre- and post-assessments were completed, as well as a two-month followup. The results of this study showed both parents reporting increased relationship function and confidence as co-parents. Both fathers and mothers reported decreases in conflict, and mothers reported decreases in general negative communication. The results of the post-intervention assessment were supported at the two-month follow-up. The findings suggest that interventions with high conflict parents may improve the co-parenting relationship, although there was no control group so these findings do not consider that passage of time may have accounted for some or all of the changes. These results support the parenting coordination intervention in that high conflict parents experienced a positive change with a twelve-hour intervention, and PCs typically work for more than twelve hours with co-parents. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 32 PC Research in the Field Research in parenting coordination has been relatively limited. This is, in part, due to the infancy of the parenting coordination role (Higuchi & Lally, 2014) and a lack of funding. Also the variation across jurisdictions makes it difficult to generalize the results of studies. Nevertheless, there has been some research into parenting coordination in North America and the highlights of that literature is discussed below. The DC Program Higuchi, Lally, and Joyner-Hall (2014) discussed the creation and implementation of a PC program that became the first permanent parenting coordination office in a court. This was established within the District of Columbia (DC) court system; initiation of development began in 2003, and the first cases began in 2005. This program was initiated because it was determined by many stakeholders that economically disadvantaged parents remained in high conflict in the adversarial system but were not able to afford parenting coordination, which the stakeholders believed would have been helpful to those families. It became quickly apparent that challenges faced by economically disadvantaged families were not necessarily the same as those faced by middle class or affluent families who participated in parenting coordination in the private sector. The authors note that the project adapted to the needs of the clientele they were serving. Services in the DC program were delivered by adequately trained psychology doctoral students, and a supervision model was adopted that mirrored what is typical in law settings. That is, a seasoned PC mentored student PCs, and that included being present for all hearings, for initial meetings of parents, meetings with children, and some ongoing parent/PC meetings. Supervisors remained highly involved, although they assumed a slightly less active role as the student PC gained more experience and expertise. Additionally, an advisory committee and FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 33 access to a nationally recognized PC for consultation was deemed invaluable. Authors suggest that this ongoing expert involvement provided an opportunity for consultation on cases, feedback, and support for the supervisor’s decisions (Higuchi, Lally, & Joyner-Hall, 2014). Following the pilot program, as noted above, the DC program was adopted by the court. Outcome measures were not collected to the degree that was intended for various reasons. One outcome, however, that was instrumental in the court adopting the PC program was that a decrease was seen in cases returning to litigation once those families had been enrolled in the PC program. The authors learned from various aspects of the pilot project and made recommendations about how to best collect outcome data for future studies. In this study the authors pointed out the importance of communication in order to advance the field: “It is important as this field grows that practitioners communicate with colleagues about successes and failures, because only with this information will the field advance” (Higuchi et al., 2014, p. 137). As well, they made the following recommendation regarding presenting and publishing information about PC work: “We strongly recommend that future [PC] projects replicate this broad effort to share their experience with the larger parenting coordination community” (p. 138). Sharing the lessons learned from various parenting coordination models, programs or projects contributes to this growing field. This is one intended purpose of this initial exploratory study on parenting coordination in BC. Other PC Studies Initial studies in parenting coordination included surveys intended to canvas demographic information and what practices were being used by PCs. A survey conducted by Kirkland and Sullivan (2008) found that PCs practicing across North America are highly experienced professionals coming from both legal and mental health backgrounds. PCs work under contracts FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 34 that specify their scope of practice, retainers/fees, terms of service and grievance procedures. The findings indicate that PCs believe their role to be effective because of its accessibility, the unique knowledge PCs have about their cases, and the authority granted by the court to resolve disputes. Henry, Fieldstone, and Bohac (2009) used a collective case study design to identify some of the demographics among cases between parents in a particular court, and whether there were any changes in the number/type of motions filed by high conflict couples in the year before and the year after parenting coordination began. Data was collected from the court records, and the number/type of motions filed in the first year was compared with the number/type of motions filed in the second year, once parenting coordination commenced. The data pool of available cases consisted of 88 cases, and a total of N = 49 cases were analyzed, drawn randomly from the available case pool. The results showed a significant reduction in motions filed, including 75% fewer motions relating to children, and 40% fewer motions that were not related to children. The generalizability of this study is limited due to the pool of cases being taken from a single court in the US. Without manipulating variables and having a control group, causation is difficult to identify and other variables may have impacted the difference in re-litigation before and after parenting coordination. Despite the limitations, the findings from this study indicate that the use of parenting coordination did decrease pressure on the court system in the year following. Experimental research could be done to support this model, and may support the transferability of this research for use in a greater context. The findings of Henry et al. (2009) were corroborated in a later study by Brewster, Beck, Anderson, and Benjamin (2011). The researchers consulted divorce records to assess the resources and services accessed by the parents once they were engaged in parenting FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 35 coordination. The pilot PC program was found to have reduced the numbers of motions filed by parents, of judicial hearings, and of changes in agreements made by judges. Although this study was completed based on a small pilot project, the results were promising. The major limitation of this study was that the small sample size makes it difficult to generalize the results of this study to other jurisdictions. Fieldstone, Carter, King, and McHale (2011) wanted to conduct a study to assess whether or not PC work yields benefits to high conflict families, but determined that a canvassing of practicing PCs was needed first to learn what interventions and techniques were being implemented, and whether or not the PCs believed their work to be useful for their clients. In a survey design, a statewide study in Florida was conducted to find out how PCs were doing their work, what the demographics were, and how PCs perceived their clients at different stages of the process. A total of N = 67 completed the survey in full, and the sample consisted of n = 43 mental health professionals and n = 24 legal professionals. PCs reported on the factors they believe to have contributed to successful and unsuccessful cases. The top five factors that PCs reported to have contributed to successful cases were: years of experience as a professional, skills and interventions as a PC, court support for the PC process, improved skills for the PC process, and PC training that had been received. The top four factors reported in unsuccessful cases were: coparents’ refusal to let go of unresolved issues, co-parents’ inability or refusal to pay for PC services, untreated substance abuse or mental health issues, and intervention of the attorneys representing one or both parties. Fieldstone et al. (2011) found the most common interventions reported by PCs included educating co-parents about the harm that interparental conflict has on children, teaching parents FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 36 to treat their relationship as if they were coworkers, and facilitating agreement between coparents to change the parenting plan to minimize conflict. The respondents indicated three distinctively different aims in their cases: developing a cooperative co-parenting alliance, achieving a functional parallel co-parenting relationship, or settling on a fully disengaged relationship in which all communication occurred through the PC. In reports by mental health professional (MHP) PCs, a correlation was drawn between families with triangulation or destructive conflict (or cases especially low in cooperative dialogue) and the aim of MHP PCs; in these cases, the PCs attempted achieve a parallel or disengaged relationship. The correlation between the aim of the PC and the level of destructive conflict between the co-parents was not significant among PCs with a legal background. Fieldstone et al. (2011) were surprised to find that mental health professionals and lawyer PCs were relatively similar in their reports, but that some differences existed. Namely, mental health professionals reported that they relied on coaching techniques and negotiation skills more often, and family law professionals were more likely to insist on communication via email only for the parties and themselves. This difference is likely reflected in PC work due to the background training of the professions. It was also noted that more mental health professionals included children in the PC process in some capacity than did family law professionals. The limitations of this study by Fieldstone et al. (2011) include the closed-ended question format of the online survey, which did not give the PCs a chance to elaborate in their responses. There is no external indicator of the accuracy of PCs’ perceptions. The researchers suggest that future studies be interview based, and include observational data if possible. Fieldstone, Lee, Baker, and McHale (2012) then conducted another study to collect the perspectives of PCs, attorneys, and judiciary members about parenting coordination. All FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 37 participants were from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida; they included n =17 judges, n = 94 attorneys and n = 23 PCs. Although the results are specific to the seasoned PC program that is offered through the court, and thus may not be generalized to other locations, especially those in places where only privatized PC services are available, some results are worth noting. Namely, when asked if the PC was helpful overall, 94% of judges responded yes and suggested that the PC provided the court with pertinent information and decreased the requests for crisis assistance. Similarly, 93% of lawyers responded that parenting coordination was helpful, amounting in fewer crisis calls to them and the involvement of the PC allowed them to focus on legal issues. Overall, the findings were supportive of PC services being provided within the court system, although some confusion existed about the expectations of the PC; many judges and attorneys expected the PC to create a parenting schedule, but PCs believed this was not within their scope. The necessity of education for stakeholders about the scope and role of the PC was an important finding in this study. Belcher-Timme, Shorey, Belcher-Timme, and Gibbings (2013) conducted a national online survey similar to the survey administered by Fieldstone et al. (2011). The survey was sent to PCs via an online list-serve, and a total of N = 79 identified PCs completed the survey (n = 17 legal professionals and n = 56 mental health professionals). Using the survey, researchers attempted to determine which aspects of parenting coordination work were viewed by PCs as most and least effective. The intended purpose of the study was to help with the development of best practices in the field of parenting coordination, and to move towards an evidence-based approach to PC work. Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) developed the survey in three sections. In section one the survey gathered demographic information; PC perceptions of the interventions used were FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 38 addressed in section two; and the third section intended to measure the PCs attitudes about parenting coordination and its process. The latter section focused on what interventions PCs were using, as well as how the interventions were delivered. The researchers chose the interventions listed in section two by reviewing the training materials of seven parenting coordinator trainers across the US. PCs were asked how to rate on a seven point Likert scale how effective the interventions have been, in their experience, in the successful resolution of conflict. PCs indicated that the existence of formal legislation influenced the perceived effectiveness of parenting coordination in their respective jurisdictions. The interventions ranked as most effective included teaching effective communication skills, informing parents about the effects of high parental conflict on children, interpreting legal documents, and assessing the general co-parenting skills of both parents. Legal professionals and MHP PCs differed only in how significantly they rated the perceived effectiveness of teaching the parents to consider the developmental needs and functioning of the child. Legal professionals ranked this intervention as effective, but MHP PCs ranked it as significantly more effective. Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) suggest that PC training be specific and focused on impartiality and objectivity in the PC process. PCs are often pulled in different directions due to intense triangulation effected by the clientele who engage in parenting coordination (Fieldstone et al., 2011). Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) found that interpreting legal documents was rated as an effective intervention, and these findings suggest that training for PCs focus on this intervention, particularly for MHP PCs. On the contrary, because considering the developmental needs and functioning of the child was identified by PCs as an effective intervention, it may be important to focus on additional training in this area, particularly for legal professionals. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 39 An important consideration in this national study by Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) is that in many jurisdictions, PCs do not have an arbitrative function. As such, arbitration was not included in the list of interventions from which participants were asked to rate the effectiveness of interventions. Although this survey has the largest sample of participants to date, given the number of professionals practicing parenting coordination, this sample represents a relatively limited number of PCs. The closed-ended survey format limits PCs from expanding on their responses compared to an interview format. The researchers suggest more research be conducted on parenting coordination because the “lives of children and the happiness of families” (p. 663) are on the line. Hayes (2010) conducted a study with N = 14 PCs. She used a semi-structured interview format, as well as five case-based vignettes that contained ethical and legal dilemmas that commonly occur in PC practice. Participants were asked to describe the skills, techniques, and strategies they would use to manage the cases introduced as case vignettes. Hayes found that PCs viewed themselves as enforcers of existing orders, and that they used skills in conflict management, parent education, and arbitration for making minor decisions. The researcher recounted direct quotes from participants to support the findings. Beck, Putterman, Sbarra, and Mehl (2008) conducted a qualitative study in Arizona to discover the PCs’ general understanding of the goals of the program, and how PCs viewed their role in assisting their clients. Interviews were conducted and open-ended questions were asked to the PCs. Generally, PCs saw their role first as an authority figure, and second as a facilitator/educator. Findings were similar to the statewide study in Florida by Fieldstone et al. (2011), in that legal professional PCs were more likely to conduct the process by email FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 40 communication. In this study, there were more family law professionals than mental health professionals, and that may have impacted the findings of how the PCs viewed their role. Hayes, Grady, and Brantley (2012) conducted a study that used a survey instrument and viewed parenting coordination through Bronfenbrenner’s Person, Process, Context, Time (PCCT) model. At the level of person, demographics of PCs were collected including background, training and professional experience. For process, researchers investigated strategies, styles, techniques, and PC-reported outcomes of their work. Regarding contextual factors, focus was on the client characteristics, laws and policies, and best practices within the parenting coordination. For time, the authors investigated the length of the dispute prior to and after involvement of the PC. The survey consisted of forty-two items, and the authors used N = 51 surveys for the analysis of data. Demographic data showed that 76% of participants were female, 98% held a postgraduate degree, and participants came from two Canadian provinces and nineteen US states. Approximately half of the PCs who participated had more than twenty PC cases and a third had worked on more than thirty cases since they became PCs. The majority of PCs (n = 41) worked with court orders and n = 10 did not. In terms of communicating and collaborating with other service providers, participants reported that that had sought input from mental health providers (MHPs) (89%), lawyers (66%), and children (61%) in almost all their cases. The top two reasons cited for involvement of MHPs were concerns related to parent function and purposes of collaboration. Involving children was done for various reasons: it was age-appropriate, to obtain their views, to discuss a specific issue, or at parents’ request. PCs excluded participation of the children if they believed it would add stress or the children were otherwise involved in evaluations or other stressors. PCs involved lawyers for their support in the process, to obtain FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 41 information, at the parties’ request, or because issues were returning to court. PCs noted that they would not involve lawyers if the lawyers were too focused on litigation or would otherwise add to the conflict. The study by Hayes et al. (2012) was exploratory. The results make a unique contribution to the literature, however, in that they are organized by demographic data, PC process, contextual factors, and length of dispute. Contributions include the perspective of PCs on emerging issues in the field, including the impact of legislation and policies, what leads to certain outcomes, and the use of specific techniques in their work such as collaboration with other professionals. Parent Traits and Perspectives of PC Intervention Mandarino et al. (2016) noted that the perspectives of parents have yet to be represented in the literature on parenting coordination, and these perspectives could provide direction about how to achieve successful outcomes with families. The authors note that a small study was conducted by Child Trends, but completed surveys of parent satisfaction were not collected to the degree necessary for data analysis. Mandarino et al. (2016) conducted a survey of parents (N = 60) who were involved with various legal and mental health interventions, including parenting coordination (n = 37), and had been divorced or separated at least two years. The study investigated the notion of whether or not parents in high-conflict separation/divorce are high in narcissism and low in empathy (as is indicated anecdotally in the literature), as well as coparenting measures, acrimony scales, and their experiences with the interventions they had participated in. The parents completed various instruments, including a survey of questions about their experience of and satisfaction of parenting coordination, with additional options for comments about their experience. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 42 The data collected in this study showed a sample that was low in narcissism and high in empathy; despite these findings, half of the parents reported parenting in a parallel fashion (as opposed to a collaborative or conflicted model) and yet conflict with the other parent continued. Specific to parenting coordination, n = 18 participants answered questions regarding satisfaction, and n = 30 participants answered questions regarding dissatisfaction. The two themes that emerged for satisfaction included equity/fairness, and changing a parent’s thinking to recognize the best interests of the child. Four themes emerged for satisfaction with the intervention in general; logistical issues, interpersonal issues, case management, and level of authority. Participant responses gave rise to four themes of dissatisfaction as it related to the intervention itself; lack of authority, cost, lack of therapeutic/working alliance, and timing. Three additional themes of dissatisfaction with the PCs emerged: bias towards the other parent, lack of qualification, and lack of professionalism. There were some interesting findings that the authors note within the results. The majority of participant responses selected either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ regarding satisfaction with their PC. Participants were also split between being ‘very likely’ and ‘very unlikely’ to recommend parenting coordination to others. Lastly, the authors note that more than half the parents attributed the lack of success in parenting coordination to the other parent and approximately one quarter attributed the lack of success to the feeling that they were unheard/not validated in the process. This study did not collect data from co-parenting pairs, although this could have created more uses for the data. The authors note that collecting data from both parents and the PC would allow for a greater picture of the PC process, outcomes, and also parent characteristics. Data regarding narcissism and empathy levels collected by self-report and other-report could produce FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 43 insights about how parents view themselves versus how they are perceived in the process. There is a discrepancy in the results of this study showing low levels of narcissism and high levels of empathy versus anecdotal evidence and PC reports of finding these clients to be high in narcissism and low in empathy (Hayes, 2012). Future Research In each study, the researchers noted the need for more empirical PC research. Researchers indicated the need for a longitudinal design to measure the efficacy of parenting coordination. Many studies have been conducted using a closed-ended survey method, and the need is indicated for qualitative interviews to collect greater detail and better learn the inner workings of PCs (Fieldstone et al, 2011; Hayes, 2010). Hayes et al. (2012) note the importance of PCs’ understanding their own practice, as well as the potential influences that may inhibit or enhance their practice. Conclusion The literature supports the view of detrimental effects on children of ongoing high interparental conflict (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Davies et al., 2016; Fauber et al., 1990; Grych, 2005; Rowen & Emery, 2014). It is estimated that approximately 8% to 25% of parents remain in high conflict in the years following separation (Hetherington, 1982; King & Heard, 1999). Children of separated parents are at increased risk of various adjustment problems including the potential for children to experience behavioural problems, difficulty with social interactions, fear of parental abandonment, mood and emotional difficulties, substance abuse issues, and low school achievement, among many other adjustment problems (Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; Morewitz, 2016). Birnbaum and Bala (2010) note that children whose parents remain in high conflict following separation are at even greater risk of these difficulties. FACTORS IN THE SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 44 Ongoing interparental conflict causes internalizing symptoms in children such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, self-blame, and poor psychological adjustment (Pruett et al., 2003). Children exposed to hostile interparental conflict are at risk for increased externalizing behaviours such as conduct problems, hyperactivity, and delinquency, resulting from this conflict’s compromising their emotional security (Davies et al., 2016). Given the multitude of detrimental effects of high interparental conflict on children, an intervention that seeks to manage this ongoing conflict is in the child’s best interests. Parenting coordination is an intervention for high conflict parents that has been practiced in British Columbia for about ten years. PCs have a mandate to consider only the best interests of the child, they have direct access to the parents, and they have functions in parent education, mediation, and arbitration, among other skills and strategies available to them to manage conflict (Fieldstone et al, 2011; Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008). The available literature on parenting coordination provides useful information, but it is difficult to apply to areas outside the jurisdictions of each study due to the differences between jurisdictions and differences in the PC models used in practice. Each jurisdiction determines its own model and its own training requirements. The literature supports parenting coordination as a viable service for high conflict parents, and the court’s recognizing its value will likely increase the use of the role (Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008). As stated by Belcher-Timme et al. (2013), research on parenting coordination is critical because the “lives of children and the happiness of families” (p. 66) are on the line. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 45 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Parenting coordination is practised by a range of practitioners with varied professional backgrounds with the intention of assisting high conflict parents with the ongoing difficulties after a separation or divorce. The literature review has established the need for parenting coordination and the framework of the role. To date, no research on parenting coordination has been conducted in British Columbia. My intention was to conduct an exploratory study of parenting coordination that will inform the future practice of the role in British Columbia. This chapter begins with a discussion about enhanced critical incident technique (ECIT). A position of critical realism has been adopted within this methodology, and this is discussed further in the paradigm section. Recruitment strategy, data collection, data analysis, and credibility checks are then discussed. Enhanced Critical Incident Technique (ECIT) The ECIT is a qualitative research method, based on a flexible set of principles that can be adapted to fit the situation at hand (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005). The method has its roots in organizational and industrial psychology, but has since been used in a wide variety of inquiries including counselling psychology (Woolsey, 1986). The ECIT can capture factual happenings, qualities and attributes that go beyond overt critical incidents. The ECIT is known for its utility as an exploratory tool in early research on a subject. This research study used the ECIT. The procedure consists of the five steps outlining data collection, and nine credibility checks intended to support the rigour of the method (Butterfield et al., 2005). The five steps followed for this study are detailed below along with details about how this study met the criteria for each of the nine credibility checks that are part of the ECIT method. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 46 The chosen method fit well with the end goal of this proposed research which is to explore a field in which little research exists, particularly in the jurisdiction of British Columbia. Another goal of this research is to contribute to the future of parenting coordination by identifying the helping and hindering factors that impact the successful resolution of family conflict that is in the children’s best interest. The following section provides an expanded rationale for the use of ECIT for this study. Use of ECIT in This Study ECIT uses a flexible set of principles that can be adapted to meet specific situations (Butterfield et al., 2005). The criteria for “incident” included actions that allowed the observer to identify a beginning, middle and end of an action/situation. To be a “critical” incident, the purpose of the act and the outcome had to be clear to the observer and be directly relevant to the general aim of the phenomena being studied. Together these elements define a critical incident within the ECIT method. The steps below were extracted from the Butterfield et al. (2005) article and were used as an outline for the process followed in this research study: 1. Ascertain the general aim of the activity being studied. This step involves answering two questions specific to the research study: What is the objective of the activity? What is the person who engages in this activity expected to accomplish? 2. Make plans and set specifications. Setting specifications entails: a) Defining the types of situations to be observed: Identify who, where, and what specific behaviours are to be observed. b) Determining relevance of the situation to the general aim: Behaviours and actions must be related to the general aim. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 47 c) Understanding the extent of the effect the incident has on the general aim: Observed behaviours must make a contribution to the general aim identified in step one above. d) Deciding who will make the observations. 3. Collect data. Data is typically collected via in-person interviews in which openended, qualitative questions are asked. It is important that the researcher explore the same level of content depth and detail with all participants. Data collection ceases when redundancy or exhaustiveness in the data occurs. 4. Analyze the data. The three steps in this process include: a) Determine the frame of reference; this arises from the use that is to be made of the data. b) Formulate the categories by grouping similar incidents. The forming of categories is an inductive process, starting with sorting incidents from the first three interviews and placing them into categories. As incidents are extracted from the rest of the interviews, incidents are placed into existing categories or into new categories. Categories may be adjusted as data analysis progresses. c) Determine the level of specificity or generality to be used in reporting the data. 5. Interpret and report the data. Due to this process relying heavily on the researcher, the nine credibility checks from the ECIT are used in this stage to increase rigour. The descriptive and exploratory nature of ECIT allows for less stringent sampling requirements compared to traditional research methods. There are no strict requirements for sample size within the methodology, but rather incidents are collected until saturation is established (reports become redundant). The sample size is dictated by the reports of the FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 48 participants, who are experts in the field, rather than a predetermined number defined by the researcher. Further details about the number of participants can be found in the section about participants below. A key piece of terminology in the ECIT method is “incident.” As defined by Woolsey (1986), an incident is based on an observable human activity that is reported in a factual manner by experts in that field. In order to be defined as a critical incident, a phenomenon must make a significant contribution to the activity being studied. The incident must also be ‘complete’ in that both the intent and the consequence are clear to the observer (the parenting coordinator in this study). In deciding the criteria for a critical incident for this research, I considered Woolsey’s (1986) statement that factual reports are preferable to ratings and opinions based on general impressions, and that only incidents which make a significant contribution to the study should be included. By following the leading articles for the ECIT in this research design, the terms and standards of this study were chosen to be congruent with the literature on the method. Rationale for ECIT Parenting coordination is a relatively new role, of which little has been documented about the day-to-day practice, and ECIT is an exploratory method used to study phenomena of which relatively little is known (Butterfield et al., 2005). Given the absence of research on parenting coordination within British Columbia, the exploratory nature of the ECIT was deemed an advantageous quality of the method. According to Woolsey (1986), “the major purpose of a critical incident study is to provide complete coverage of the content domain” (p. 245). One intention of this proposed research was to conduct an early study that covers a wide content domain of parenting coordination. This research study intended to define what factors parenting coordinators find to be helping or hindering in the resolution of family conflict, to define what FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 49 successful resolution of conflict means to PCs, and to discover what supports PCs would find useful in the future. One of the defining elements of the ECIT method is that participants are considered experts in their field, and interviewing those experts rather than directly observing them in their work is considered sufficient for collecting their experiences (Butterfield et al., 2005). Originally, the method was titled the critical incident technique (CIT) (if readers are interested in the origin of the method, see Flanagan’s (1954) landmark article.) Wong (2000) noted the expansion of the CIT method to include the subjective experiences of participants. This expansion further shapes the method in that the researcher can interview experts in the field about their experiences, attitudes and beliefs, rather than just collecting factual recounting of incidents from participants. In this study, the inclusion of the meaning of an incident is appropriate for participants to share during data collection. Another advantage of using the ECIT for this study is that it allows for participants to share their definition of successful resolution of family conflict, and to define what “success” means to them. In order to canvas a relatively new role that has not been researched, these elements of the ECIT make this method appropriate and advantageous for this project. While variables are not controlled the same way in qualitative versus quantitative studies, efforts are made in qualitative research within this paradigm to standardize the method, which can be done by using specified terminology and following the procedures closely. Leading articles in the practical application of this method (Butterfield, Borgen, Maglio, & Amundson 2009; Woolsey, 1986) were consulted in order to conform to the current standards and practices. In this research design, the research question and purpose, data collection method, data analysis, and the protocol for credibility checks were all considered within contextual FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 50 realism and best practices for the ECIT. Greater detail can be found in each of the respective sections within this chapter. Paradigm This research is situated in the contextual realist paradigm. I chose a naturalistic approach as a method of inquiry which uses open-ended questions in an interview format. This approach, situated within contextual realism, allows me to “make claims pertaining to the systems that are actually studied” based on the interview findings (McGrath & Johnson, 2003, p. 44). Using a qualitative design, however, and not emphasizing the precision and control that is often demonstrated in quantitative inquiry, I am not focusing on causal inferences from the results collected in this study. Due to the practice of parenting coordination being different depending on the jurisdiction, I determined that being able to make claims pertaining to PC work in British Columbia would be valuable. Contextual realism posits that our knowledge is influenced by social and professional factors. The influences of context are clearly highlighted in this study. The circumstances that form the setting for the events and experiences of the participants within their roles as PCs was a central part of the inquiry, and showed through clearly in the findings (category scheme). I minimized potentials for bias and ensured that the expertise of participants was prioritized. The rigour checks discussed below summarize key design features for the project. (If the reader is interested in learning more about my voice in this project, see Appendix G, “Situating the Researcher”.) FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 51 Survey Versus Chosen Methodology A survey method was considered as another option for this study, as it would serve the purpose of collecting some of the data that I was seeking to collect. However, prior studies on parenting coordination (Fieldstone, Carter, King, & McHale, 2011; Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008) used survey methods. Fieldstone et al. (2011) suggested that a more careful qualitative study that includes interview-based and observational data is necessary for the advancement of the role. Obtaining direct observational data of PC work is outside the scope of this study; however, the ECIT uses an interview format and seeks information from experts in the field, which is a close alternative if direct observation by the researcher is not performed. Another strength of using the ECIT is to collect greater detail than is typically possible within a survey methodology. Building rapport and explaining to participants the purpose of gathering explicit detail during data collection is a strength of the interview format of this study. The interview is relatively lengthy, and the question-answer format allows for probing questions by the researcher to collect detail from participants; this interactive verbal process allows for the necessary detail collection within incidents more effectively than written answers in a survey format. Another distinguishing feature of the ECIT is for the interviewer to collect similar amounts of detail from each of the participants. Using a survey methodology, participants complete the survey without active prompting from an interviewer; therefore, it is likely that participants would provide different levels of detail in response to written survey items. ECIT provides the opportunity for participants to expand on their experiences, which is typically not a feature of surveys (Butterfield et al., 2009). Additionally, the “wish list” element of the ECIT was deemed an ideal fit with one intention of this study; that is, to inform the future FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 52 practice in the field based on the opinion of the professionals currently practising parenting coordination in BC. Participants This study included N = 8 parenting coordinators who come from three different professional backgrounds: lawyers (n = 4); registered clinical counsellors (n = 2); and social workers (n = 2). All participants were active members of the British Columbia Parenting Coordinator Roster Society (BCPCRS) at the time of their interviews. The term “parenting coordinator” is not regulated in British Columbia. The BCPCRS has a membership committee who ensure that members meet their requirements before being admitted to the roster. The society requires that parenting coordinators meet the standards laid out by the legislature (BC Family Law Act). As a result of these strict guidelines and restrictions laid out by the BCPCRS, each PC has received the same basic training (at the minimum) and all are held to the standards set by the roster society for the practice of parenting coordination. By recruiting participants from this roster, substantial differences in the training of PCs being sampled was avoided. As quoted earlier, Woolsey (1986) stated that the major purpose of a critical incident study is to provide complete coverage of the content domain. In order to research the practices of parenting coordinators on the roster, I deemed it necessary to include PCs from varied professional backgrounds including both mental health and law. A heterogeneous sample was chosen to ensure the sample is adequately representative of the roster membership, and was chosen with the intent of gathering the greatest coverage of the content domain. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 53 Table 1 Background of Parenting Coordinators Average Range # of years as PC 6.75 years 2-10 years Number of closed PC files 15 files 0 – 50+ files Number of open PC files 6.75 files 2 – 22 files Description of the Sample Seven participants were female and one was male. Table 1 includes the number of years of PC practice, the number of closed PC files and the number of open PC files that each participant had at the time of his or her interview. Inclusion Criteria In order for a participant to be included in this study, parenting coordinators must have had at least one open file in the last year. This criterion was intended to increase the chance for PCs to accurately recall, in detail, the factors that impacted the successful resolution of family conflict. Participants agreed to sign an informed consent form that detailed the nature of this study, the procedures, and details regarding the results and the publishing of the study. Participants committed to completing an initial audio recorded interview, and were aware of the opportunity to complete a second shorter interview as part of the rigour check for participant cross-checking. Exclusion Criteria People who offer parenting coordination services but are not members of the BCPCRS were not included in this study. The roster society is the interdisciplinary body in British FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 54 Columbia that offers PC training and has requirements for membership that meet the standards for parenting coordination as stated in the legislature. Participants were excluded if they could not commit to completing the initial audio recorded interview. If a participant dropped out of the study part way through, data collected would not have been used in the data analysis or in the results. Recruitment Strategy The PC Roster Society (BCPCRS) consists of a board of directors made up of PCs who are interested in improving the service for the public and the professional role. Through contact with the board, it became apparent that they are interested in research about parenting coordination and wished to support this research. In consultation with key informants, a letter and purpose statement were developed and distributed by the board to the members on the roster. Convenience sampling was used, and members who were interested in participating were directed to contact me by telephone or email. After initial contact was made, a conversation that covered the inclusion criteria took place to identify if the member was eligible to participate in this research. I intended to recruit a sample that included a variety of professional backgrounds, and specifically to include more than one participant with a background in counselling psychology. After it was determined that the participants met the criteria for participation, and the participants committed to participating after learning more about the research study, an interview time was agreed upon between the interviewer and participant. Each participant agreed that the interview would be audio recorded. An email was sent to each participant prior to his or her interview that included sample questions from the interview guide, as well as a copy of the FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 55 informed consent form and the brief demographic survey. Participants had the option of reviewing this material prior to our scheduled interview time, although this was not mandatory. Procedures for Data Collection Before the interview took place, the interviewer reviewed the informed consent form (Appendix B) and participants signed one copy to be kept by the researcher. Participants were given a copy of the informed consent form to keep for themselves. Participants were reminded of their option to withdraw their consent at any point in the process of this study. No participants exercised that right. ECIT has no strict requirements for sample size, but rather recommends the continued collection of incidents until redundancy begins to be observed. Woolsey (1986) suggests that redundancy is achieved when only two or three new categories emerge out of 100 incidents. The interviews were audio recorded and all data was downloaded to a computer and stored securely. To protect the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, interviews were identified by numerical code and only the research team had access to the participant’s identity. The audio recording from the first interview was transcribed into a word document by me. This allowed me to set specifications for transcription of the remaining interviews. The remaining seven audio recordings were transcribed by a professional transcriber, who signed a non-disclosure agreement prior to accessing the audio recordings. Data was transmitted via an online account (protected by username and password) that only myself and the transcriptionist had access to. Hard copies of transcripts were stored in a secure home office. Upon receiving the transcripts, I read through them while listening to the original audio recording to ensure accuracy. During this process of transcript checking, I also removed any identifying information from the word document so that the final transcripts were anonymous. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 56 All future work with the transcripts was completed with anonymized transcripts to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of everyone involved. Background Information A brief form requesting background information was emailed in advance of scheduled interviews, and a copy was given to participants during the interview, after the participant signed the informed consent form (Appendix A). Woolsey (1986) stated “it is helpful to gather relevant descriptive biographical data about the respondents, but these data are used only descriptively in a critical incident study” (p. 245). The following questions were asked: professional background of the participant; how many active/dormant PC files they have; and about their formal training in parenting coordination and other relevant professional training. The intention of collecting this background information was to contribute to collecting data that covers a wide content domain and to enhance the exploratory nature of the methodology used in this research. The descriptive data collected from this form was intended to help identify differences or similarities between participants and was used for descriptive purposes only. Enhanced Critical Incident Interview The interview was semi-structured, and I asked questions of participants about factors that helped and hindered the successful resolution of family conflict in the children’s best interest. I prompted participants for detail about the interventions or techniques used, how the participant determined “success” in the resolution of conflict, and how the children’s best interests were served by the resolution. The interview guide (Appendix C) was used in all interviews, meant to act as a prompt for the interviewer to ensure that the same content areas and the same level of detail was covered in each interview (Butterfield et al., 2009). The quality and accuracy of the incidents is based on the full and precise detail offered by the participant FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 57 (Flanagan, 1954), thus highlighting the importance of the interviewer’s prompting for adequate detail of incidents. This portion of the interview continued until the participant did not recount any more helping or hindering factors in the successful resolution of conflict, at which time the wish list question was asked. The “wish list” question is asked of participants to inquire about what PCs wish they had that would have helped them to successfully resolve the conflict. According to Butterfield et al. (2009), wish list items are those people, supports, information, and programs that were not available at the time of the incident, but that the participant believes would have been helpful. The wish list question gave participants, who are experts on the subject of parenting coordination, a chance to speak to aspects that they believe would be helpful for PCs going forward. A second interview was completed with some participants as part of the credibility checks. More detail on that interview can be found below under the heading “Cross-checking by participants.” Data Analysis Data analysis began after three interviews were completed so that a running tally of emerging incidents and categories could be recorded. Extraction of the critical incidents (CI) and wish list (WL) items allowed for preliminary categorization of incidents based on the themes that emerged. This same process continued after the next three interviews were conducted and transcribed, and items were added to existing categories or new categories were added to accommodate the incidents. After completion of the last two interviews, the same process was followed. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 58 The audio recordings and the transcripts were both consulted during data analysis. To be consistent within the standard for this method, my intent was to capture the experiences of the participants as fully as possible. This is also consistent with this research being situated in contextual realism. Hindering and wish list items can be understood and captured in the participants’ experience and words so that the researcher can be a collector of information. This is a more objective position for the researcher compared to a constructivist paradigm in which the participant and researcher create new meaning together during the data collection process (Creswell, 2013). Critical incident (CI) and wish list (WL) items were extracted and placed onto flash cards, and colour coded according to helping, hindering or wish list. Items were then placed with similar incidents to form preliminary categories. This process of incident extraction and category formation continued until all data was extracted from all interviews. Upon completion of category formation, category definitions were created for each category. Once categories were formed and given a title, an operational definition was required for each category. These titles and definitions continued to be refined as the study progressed. The operational definition was written to capture the incidents in each category and included quotes from the participants. This provides the reader with an understanding of both the breadth and range of the incidents and factors that make up the categories that emerged in this study. One of the potential weaknesses of the ECIT is that critical incidents rely on accurate recall and truthful reporting from participants (Butterfield, 2009). This potential limitation of an ECIT study was considered in the development of inclusion criteria for participants. The important aspect is to collect detail about critical incidents, and for this reason, participants must have had active PC files within the last year. The ECIT has a built-in bias in that recent events FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 59 are easier to recall in detail than past events during the data collection process. I remained mindful of this potential weakness, but outside of being aware of this and prompting for additional detail, little can be done about the nature of participants’ memory. Credibility Checks The last step in data analysis was completion of the credibility checks. Cross-checking by participants. A word document containing their own extracted incidents, as well as all the category definitions for this study, was created for each participant. This word document was sent to each participant via email along with an invitation to participate in a follow-up interview for cross-checking purposes. Butterfield et al. (2009) suggested asking the participant to answer the following questions about the extracted items: a) Are the helping/hindering CIs and WL items correct? b) Is anything missing? c) Is there anything that needs revising? d) Do you have any other comments? Additionally, Butterfield et al. (2009) suggested asking four similar questions about the categories during the second interview. During the second interview, any changes or disagreements were discussed and the document was edited (if necessary) to reflect the participant’s views. Participants were invited to share their feedback about the results, and any further input that participants wished to give was welcomed. This email correspondence was part of the cross-checking credibility check in the ECIT, and was necessary to ensure that the data analysis was representative of the participant’s experiences (Butterfield et al., 2009. This crosschecking credibility check ensured that the participants agree with the extraction and categorization of incidents. Since the participants are FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 60 the experts on the subject, and they are relating their own experiences and opinions, it is important that they were given the option to provide feedback and input regarding the results. It gave an opportunity for the participants to clarify or correct any misunderstandings, and was meant to serve as one safeguard against researcher bias. Of the eight participants, seven participated in this step. Two participants confirmed by return email that they were satisfied with their contributions, the categories, and that they did not have anything further to add. One participant indicated that they would contact me if there was anything in the results that was not a fit for them, and I did not receive further contact. Four participants chose to participate in a second interview by telephone. The four questions (mentioned above) posed by Butterfield (2009) were discussed with the participants, and their feedback about the category scheme, pattern of results, and any other comments were welcomed. After the telephone interview, a summary of the conversation was sent to participants. They were asked to review that email, review any changes that may have resulted from their input, and confirm by return that the content was representative of their contribution. All of the four participants replied that they were satisfied with the contributions of their second interview. Independent extraction of incidents. This credibility check involved another person, who was familiar with the ECIT, to review 25% of the transcripts and independently identify/extract the CI and WL items. A short training session occurred with this person to explain the purpose of this research study, the research question, and some brief background about the role of parenting coordinators. During the training session, I reviewed six pages of anonymized transcripts from interviews with participants and demonstrated the extraction of incidents based on the specifications set for this research study. The trained extractor then reviewed ten pages of randomly chosen transcripts and extracted incidents, which were then FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 61 placed into a basic chart for organizational purposes. Another face-to-face meeting was held to compare agreement on the extracted incidents. Any discrepancy was discussed, and agreement was reached. Had agreement not been reached between the me and the incident extractor, the incident in question would have been removed from the data (Butterfield et al., 2009). Placing incidents into categories by an independent judge. This credibility check involved an independent person (familiar with the ECIT) placing 25% of randomly chosen CI and WL items (that were already extracted by the researcher) into the categories created by the researcher. Andersson and Nilsson (1964) suggest an agreement rate of 80% or more for this credibility check. Due to the complex incidents that were extracted, helping, hindering, and wish list factors within each complex incident that had been extracted were placed on flash cards. Flash cards that included 25% of helping, hindering, and wish list items respectively were provided to the independent judge, along with a printed document with category titles, the operational definitions and quotations from participants. The judge then placed the factors into the categories independently. Once complete, the placement of factors was compared with how the researcher had placed the factors, and agreement rates (between the researcher and judge) were calculated. Agreement rates were 100% for Wish List factors, 89% for Hindering factors, and 93% for Helping factors. These agreement rates exceeded the 80% agreement rate recommended by Anderson and Nilsson (1964); thus they were deemed to be sufficient and appropriate for this study. Participation rates. Participation rates are important to report when establishing the credibility of categories, both while categories are being formed and for assessing the strength of the category (Butterfield et al., 2009). Each participant was given a number that was recorded with every CI or WL item, and data from all participants was entered into one cohesive FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 62 document based on category. Participant numbers were counted in each category and that number was divided by the total number of participants in order to determine the participant rate for each category (Butterfield et al., 2009). Participation rates can be found in Table 3 (p. 100). Exhaustion in the data. Interviews with participants continued until few new categories emerged (Andersson & Nilsson, 1964). At this point, the data was determined to be saturated and data collection ceased. Specifically, Woolsey (1986) considers redundancy to be reached when only two or three categories emerge per 100 incidents. In this study, complex incidents emerged and factors were extracted from incidents and placed into categories. Eight interviews were scheduled in advance with participants and took place regardless of exhaustion in the data. This approach ensured a heterogeneous sample. A log of each interview was kept to track exhaustiveness in the data. Exhaustion was achieved when the extracted factors created few new categories. This occurred after the analysis of interview five, but the remainder of interviews were carried out and analyzed. Theoretical agreement. Theoretical agreement has two parts (Butterfield et al., 2005). The first involves articulating and reporting the underlying assumptions in the study, and the second has to do with comparing the emergent categories with scholarly literature in order to build support for categories. This credibility check is based on Maxwell’s (1992) description. To satisfy the first part of the theoretical criteria, the underlying assumptions of this study have been articulated in the assumptions section. The second part of theoretical agreement is difficult because scholarly literature is limited on the subject of parenting coordination. I was unable to locate any research that includes categories beyond the general functions of a parenting coordinator. Those categories, based on a study completed in Florida, include parent education, mediation, and arbitration (Fieldstone, Carter, King, & McHale, 2011). The findings in this FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 63 research study were expected to identify more specific categories that give a more nuanced picture of the role of parenting coordinators in resolving family conflict. Interview fidelity. An individual experienced in the use of the ECIT methodology reviewed the entirety of interview number three to ensure compliance with the method, prior to the remaining interviews being conducted. The same individual reviewed sections of transcript from interviews numbered four, five, and eight to ensure that compliance with the ECIT method continued throughout the remaining interviews. Eliciting expert opinions. An expert in the field of separation and divorce as well as training in the ECIT methodology reviewed the category definitions. This expert also reviewed selected portions of transcripts, incidents extracted from those transcripts, and the placement of those incidents into categories. This check was completed as an additional layer of protection against researcher bias by ensuring that the participants’ meanings and incidents were accurately represented in the category definitions to be reported in the results section of this document. The results were reviewed by an expert in parenting coordination from Eastern Canada. He reviewed the findings and determined that the results are both interesting and useful. Consultation with Parenting Coordinators Since the establishment of parenting coordination is a recent development in Canada, expert consultation was pursued to support literature review. Consultation included contact with various PCs in BC and with the BCPCRS board. During consultation, it was suggested that I become a student member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and attend their international conferences. I attended the international conferences in June of 2016 and 2017, first in Seattle and then in Boston. I also attended a conference in San Diego in 2017 that was hosted by the AFCC and the Association of American Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML). FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 64 These conferences provided opportunities to interact with the professionals and researchers as well as observe them interacting with each other. I gained exposure to the latest research in the field and spoke with many of the researchers who have conducted PC research in North America. By attending educational seminars and lectures at these conferences, I was able to learn from and further engage the professionals. These encounters, experiences, and relationships were influential in the design of this project and in the formulation of the research question. PCs often explained the difficulties they encountered, the strengths and weaknesses of various models, and what could be done to improve parenting coordination. It became clear that although the mandate is for the court and the PCs to work in the best interests of the child, there are differing views about what is best for children. Further, PCs regularly raised the issue the best ways to achieve that end. It was the literature in conjunction with the accounts of PCs that piqued my interest in the “best interests of the child” mandate, which became part of the research question. My immersion in the PC culture also afforded me a nuanced view of what my participants were saying throughout data collection. It increased my ability to understand their meanings, and the more challenging aspects of their role as PCs. As a result of this immersion, I was able to develop a clear, collaborative and respectful relationship with the PC community. This immersion in the field extended to create a respectful relationship between myself, the British Columbia Parenting Coordinator Roster Society board, and my participants. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 65 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS This study sought to explore the factors that help or hinder the successful resolution of family conflict in a way that meets the children’s best interests. A total of eight interviews were completed with parenting coordinators who are members of the British Columbia Parenting Coordinators Roster Society. This chapter provides in-depth detail about the helping, hindering and wish-list categories. Two tables are presented to assist the reader in understanding how the categories relate to one another. This chapter closes with an integrative summary of the findings. A total of 197 factors were extracted from the interviews: 106 helping; 44 hindering; and 47 wish list items. During data analysis, factors were placed with other factors based on commonality, and categories were formed through this process. Each category is numbered and has a title, a definition, and quotes from participants are interspersed throughout. The number of factors in each category and the participation rate (PR) is listed after each category title. The participation rate indicates the percentage of participants who contributed incidents to that category. All categories are numbered and some categories have subcategories that are denoted with letters following the category number. The helping, hindering and wish list categories are interrelated. To assist the reader in understanding the relationship between categories, they have been organized into five groupings. The five groupings are: ethics and collaboration, information and resources, relationship with the legal system, parent factors, and parenting coordinator (PC) factors. Table 2 lists all the numbered categories and subcategories with titles, as well as the grouping they fit into. The title of each grouping indicates how the categories relate to one another. Table 3 (p. 100) offers a short explanation of each grouping, as well as the number of factors and participation rates for each category. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 66 Table 2 Categories Organized by Grouping Grouping Helping Categories Hindering Categories Wish List Categories Ethics & Collaboration 2A: Collaborating with the parties’ lawyers 3: Other professionals not being collaborative or effective 1A: Involvement of cooperative professionals 2B: Collaborating with peers 3A: Peer consultation and learning opportunities 2C: Collaborating with other professionals 3B: Enhanced PC and Ethics Standards Information & Resources 1A: Information obtained directly from 3rd parties 1B: Availability and knowledge of costeffective services 1B: Information obtained through observation and research 5: Increased understanding and education about the PC role 1C: Obtaining the child’s views Relationship with the Legal System 5A: Determination making ability 4: Clarity in court orders and parenting plans 5B: Court understanding and court orders Parent Factors 4: Helpful parent behaviours, characteristics, and attitudes 1A: Emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues 1B: Hindering parental attitudes and behaviours 1C: Circumstances that increase opportunity for conflict 2: Financial Barriers PC Factors 3: STRATEGIES 3A: Strategies used in meetings with parents 4: PC Challenges and mistakes 2: Specific and Advanced PC Trainings FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 67 3B: Consensus-building phase 3C: Determination making phase 3D: Strategies used throughout parenting coordination 3E: Billing strategies 6: PC understanding of family systems, dynamics & psychological development Helping Categories Participants were asked what factors helped in the resolution of family conflict. PCs found it helpful to obtain information from various sources, to collaborate with other professionals, and to have an understanding of psychological constructs and family systems. The current relationship with the legal system was also cited as a helpful factor for PCs in the resolution of family conflict. Helping categories had an added component of strategies and processes used by the PC. This created a category scheme in the helping realm that is not seen in the hindering categories. When PCs were successful in resolving conflict, they shared how they did that, as well as details about the process they followed in their work. This resulted in more categories and subcategories in the helping realm than in the hindering or wish list categories. Helping 1: Obtaining information to serve the best interests of children (16 factors, 88% participation rate) Participants shared many incidents in which they found it helpful to obtain information that gave them a greater understanding of the family they were working with. PCs indicated that FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 68 it was helpful to speak to third parties who worked directly with family members, such as mental health professionals. PCs also spoke of the helpful ways to gather objective information, and the importance of obtaining the children’s views. PCs identified that obtaining information was a key factor in helping them to successfully resolve conflict in the children’s best interests. Helping 1A: Information obtained directly from third parties (8 factors, 63% participation rate). PCs found it helpful when other professionals involved with the family communicated with and provided feedback to the PC (outside of reporting the child’s views). This category focuses on information being provided that is helpful for the PC in working with the family or in making decisions. One participant shared about how working with the children’s counsellor has helped the family: “Her credibility has meant that the kids haven’t been forced into a parenting plan that causes them anxiety and stress.” In addition to consulting with mental health professionals, participants spoke of how helpful it was to speak to other professionals such as bail officers and teachers; “The bail officer confirmed that there were no reasons why this parent couldn’t travel with the child over spring break, and that enabled me to make that decision.” Information obtained from third parties helped participants to make informed decisions that always have the children’s best interest as the priority. Helping 1B: Information obtained through observation and research (5 factors, 50% participation rate). Incidents in this category include obtaining objective information from a variety of sources such as direct observation, peer-reviewed research, assessments and reports, and laws that pertain to the issue at hand. One participant had a meeting to observe the children with their step-mother, and was “able to go back to [birth] mom and say, ‘Here’s how I’m seeing it.’” As a result of directly observing the family dynamic, the PC believes the outcome for the children was that it took “the kids out of the fire and started to FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 69 de-escalate [the mom].” Another participant spoke of how peer-reviewed research helped them to make a decision about whether or not the children should receive a vaccination:1 “part of my decision was based on the fact that current peer-reviewed research spoke favourably about it.” Having objective information helped parenting coordinators to make informed decisions that served the children. Helping 1C: Obtaining the child’s views (3 factors, 38% participation rate). PCs identified that obtaining the child’s views was an important factor in resolution of family conflict. Participants were explicit in that children do not make decisions, but their thoughts and preferences are important and often instrumental in resolving conflict between the parents. One participant explained the need for obtaining the child’s views: “If they’re [the parents] both telling me the same thing about what the kid thinks, that’s clearly not a factor in the conflict. If they each think the child has a different perspective, then clearly I need to interview the kids.” Participants did not always obtain the child’s views themselves, sometimes they had a child specialist obtain the child’s views: “I may, rather than interview them directly, have someone else do the interviewing or share with me the child’s perspective.” Whether the PC obtains the child’s views directly or uses a third party for that purpose, it is an important factor that allowed PCs to keep the child’s best interest at the forefront when trying to resolve parental conflicts. Helping 2: Collaboration (13 factors, 75% participation rate) Collaborating with other professionals, whether it be the parties’ lawyers, other parenting coordinators, or other professionals involved with the family was identified as a helpful factor for PCs. Given the difficulty of working with high conflict parents, several participants cited 1 To protect the anonymity of participants, gender-specific pronouns are not used in the reporting of these findings. examples of helpful experiences through collaboration. Support from peers helped PCs to work through their own challenges within cases and the role of parenting coordinator. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 70 Collaborating with lawyers was identified as helpful when the lawyers were able to contribute to the process and work together with the PC. Collaboration with other professionals, in a coordinated manner, was cited by participants as an ethical approach to serving the best interests of the child. Helping 2A: Collaborating with the parties’ lawyers (4 factors, 38% participation rate). Incidents in this category include instances when the clients’ lawyers collaborated with the parenting coordinator and it was helpful. Lawyers can help by reining their clients in, or by supporting or collaborating with the parenting coordinator. One PC explained that the lawyers have to be collaborative in their approach to make it work: “The lawyers that I work with are lawyers that are more collaborative in nature in saying that they want to work with a PC. Lawyers that are not collaborative don’t participate in this process and are very adversarial.” Another participant shared an experience in which they were contacted by the clients’ lawyers in an effort to work together with the PC, because the lawyers were concerned for the children: “Here are two really concerned lawyers you know, wanting to make sure that the children are not further harmed.” Another participant spoke of an experience with two lawyers who collaborated with the PC to create a parenting plan: “It was very helpful because they were willing to take direction from me, so they were able to be client-centered but solution focused.” As a typical example of the views of a parenting coordinator, who is looking out for the best interest of the children, one participant indicated, “I think the more collaborators there are, the better” to sum up their experience of working with collaborative lawyers. Helping 2B: Collaborating with peers (PCs) (4 factors, 38% participation rate). Incidents in this category include peer support and consultation being helpful to participants. Participants spoke of how learning from other PCs “has helped deepen my practice” and how FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 71 regular peer consultation in a group format has been helpful. One participant shared about how they consulted with other PCs outside of a planned consultation, and how that helped the PC work through a difficult case: “One thing that has been helpful is having collegial support, having people within the community that I have at times felt that I could go talk to or when it’s a really crazy case, so that actually has been really helpful.” Given the difficult nature of this work, having support from peers and the ability to consult with them on more difficult cases was helpful to participants. Helping 2C: Collaboration with other professionals (5 factors, 25% participation rate). Participants noted that collaboration with other professionals was needed to best serve the children and families they worked with. In one case, a PC collaborated with a child specialist and parenting coach who was working with all members of the family. This collaboration allowed for transparency, and the mental health professional was collaborating with the PC in assessing the family and making decisions for treatment. In another case, the PC was acting as a case manager and collaborating with three different professionals, one of whom worked with each member of the family. Another participant spoke of how her collaboration with a mental health team “was a direct benefit to the children in making sure that a mental health team was in place to assist the children in this particular case.” The participant collaborated with the mental health team to develop a treatment plan for services, thus making the best interests of that child the priority, despite the parents’ conflict over this issue. Collaboration with other professionals was helpful for PCs in the resolution of family conflict. Helping 3: PC Strategies (52 factors, 88% participation rate) Incidents in this category include the many strategies participants have used with families during different phases of the parenting coordination process. Participants shared helpful FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 72 strategies used during (A) Meetings with parents, (B) Consensus-building phase, (C) Determination-making phase, (D) Strategies used throughout the PC process, and (E) Billing Strategies. These strategies are discussed in greater detail in their respective subcategories below. Helping 3A: Strategies used during meetings with parents (2 factors, 25% participation rate). Two participants contributed to this category, sharing some of the strategies they use when working with parents in a meeting format. One participant emphasized the need for taking breaks during the meetings to de-escalate the tension. Another PC found it helpful to move from face-to-face meetings to meeting on Google Hangouts instead: “Working with them on google Hangouts is so much better than having them in the same room. The technology supports effective communication and it’s a much more managed tension.” After moving a couple to online meetings, the participant reported that “She [the mother] was so much healthier and her interactions were so much better, and her parenting was better because she was destressed.” How PCs engage with the parents, and how the parents engage with each other in the PC process can impact their parenting. It is helpful when parenting coordinators find ways to facilitate parental engagement in the PC process. Helping 3B: Consensus-building phase (6 factors, 50% participation rate). Participants listed many strategies that helped them during the consensus-building phase with parents. These strategies pertained to a wide range of topics raised by parents in the PC process. Participants agreed that parents have a tendency to focus on the conflict between the two of them or events that took place in the past. One of the helpful factors that many participants raised during negotiations or consensus-building was to keep parents focused on the present, and to bring their best selves to the negotiation: “Constantly inviting parents and keeping it ever-present that the FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 73 deciding or the overarching objective is the kid’s best interest, really inviting their best self to the table with that, is a constant in the relationship with these families.” Another strategy used during this phase was to educate parents about protective factors that buffer against parental conflict, and explain how that can help parents to understand what is in their child’s best interests. In one example in which the parents could not agree on their child’s sport involvement, one PC indicated “a key part of what helped mom get on board was helping her understand how a kid having the opportunity for excellence is a huge buffer against parental conflict.” Another PC worked with the parents to create a document called the “rules of engagement,” which was a list of behaviours for the parents to follow during transition of the child, and the PC shared how the child benefited from the agreement they reached during the consensus building process: “The expected behaviours were very clear so that the child could benefit from having a reduction in the conflict between the parents.” Lastly, participants pointed out that they “trace from the most vulnerable; it’s always from the child’s perspective. If you work for the child, you have served the parents.” By keeping this principle at the heart of consensus-building, PCs used many strategies to encourage parents to resolve their disputes during the consensus-building phase. Helping 3C: Determination making phase (8 factors, 50% participation rate). Participants spoke about the strategies and techniques they used when writing determinations. One participant shared the reason behind their determination making strategy: I’m writing very clear, very carefully-worded determinations that help the reader to understand the logic of why I’m doing things. I’m going to be very careful to make sure that I reflect back my understanding of each parent’s position so that they feel heard because we know if you give these people empathy, attention, and respect, they’re much more likely to respond positively than if you blow them off or they feel blown off. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 74 As parenting coordinators are often consulting with third parties or other sources of information, one participant shared how consultation with a child specialist was handled in the determination making phase: “Child specialists are sometimes not cooperative because they don’t want to end up in court, and that’s understandable; I don’t either. The way that I have developed to protect against that is I make it clear to the child therapist that I’m not relying on their decisions; it’s my decision.” Other strategies included reflecting the PC’s understanding of the research, giving parents timelines for completion of tasks, objectively weighing information, and emphasizing PC impartiality. These strategies helped participants to write determinations in the parenting coordination process that had the children’s best interests as the focal point. Helping 3D: Strategies used throughout parenting coordination (30 factors, 75% participation rate). Participants recounted several helpful skills and strategies that they used with parents throughout the parenting coordination process. Strategies recalled by participants covered a wide range, from teaching the parents personal skills such as perspective taking and flexible thinking, to putting in place protocols for how communication should look between them. When families first come to parenting coordination, some of them need to develop new understanding, especially if they have come from the litigation system. One participant detailed some of the ideas he or she introduces the parents to upon entering the PC process. Introducing parents to the idea that it is not all about them is a place to start, one PC said: “It’s constant, introducing them to the idea that it’s not all about them. It’s introducing them to the idea that they can both put the child first and do things that they feel a little uncomfortable doing but doing it to keep the children first.” FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 75 This strategy helped the PC to bring the parents back to focusing on their child. Another PC shared about how they normalized one parent’s experience of the other parent, and how “that took the air out of it for her where she felt confident that she was parenting her children and she was okay with not being okay with his choices.” One participant shared the email protocol that they implement for parents to use in communication with each other, represented by the acronym “BIFF: Brief, informative, friendly, and firm, and without any emotional content in it” (Eddy, 2014). Strategies such as these used throughout the PC process helped to keep parents focused on their child and to work towards resolving conflict. Helping 3E: Billing strategies (6 factors, 38% participation rate). Incidents in this category relate to billing strategies used by PCs. Many participants acknowledged that the easiest, and arguably the most common way for parents to stop the PC process is to stop paying the PC. One participant found it helpful to offer a discount on PC services: a free three-hour meeting if the parent paid their portion of the PC account that was outstanding, although the participant noted “You make deals when you really shouldn’t have to make deals.” Another participant shared how they use a billing strategy to manage the behavior of parents: “I’m looking for managed emotion, moderate behaviour, and not all-or-nothing thinking. . . . So if I see immoderate behaviour, unmanaged emotions, or all-or-nothing thinking, the chances are that one of them is going to get a bill for that display.” Participants found that different billing strategies could help reduce parental conflict, or keep them engaged in the PC process when they would otherwise have used financial barriers to stop the process. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 76 Helping 4: Helpful Parental Behaviours, Characteristics and Attitudes (12 factors, 63% participation rate) The most prevalent behaviour that participants described as being helpful to the successful resolution of conflict in the child’s best interest is when the parents reached agreement by consensus. Several participants mentioned that decisions by consensus are best because “they’re the longest lasting, the most enduring.” If the parents were to not reach agreement, a determination would often be the next step and in that process and then “one party has naturally lost.” In the process of parenting coordination, participants identified other helpful parent behaviours: the acceptance of feedback regarding their child’s views, and the parents accepting influence as a result of those views. Participants also included cooperative behaviour and engaging with the PC as helpful to the parenting coordination process on the whole. One participant specified a number of parent characteristics as being helpful factors that influence the PC process. Examples included parents who have a high level of function and do not want to stay in conflict: that are motivated by “their own level of high function to not want to stay in a state of conflict.” The parents say, “it’s not my kid, it’s not your kid, it’s our kid. What do we do when we disagree?. . . they default to saying ‘We’ll choose someone that we can both trust, and in the absence of us being able to make a decision, we’ll just default to the parenting coordinator.” Based on these functional characteristics, when the couple self-refers and chooses their PC, “they already have a huge buy-in to the process, as opposed to a couple who had been ordered by the court.” The parents truly putting the child’s best interests first was deemed helpful for the parenting coordination process and instrumental in the successful resolution of conflict for children. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 77 Helping 5: Relationship with the Legal System (8 factors, 50% participation rate) Parenting coordinators identified various aspects of the relationship between PC and the court to be helpful. One helpful aspect is the arbitration function of PCs within the identified scope that exists in the legislature, the Family Law Act (2011). PCs have the authority, and the training required to arbitrate in their work with parents. This authority was identified as being helpful in the successful resolution of family conflict. One participant shared that the court now has a greater understanding of parenting coordination, and by issuing clear court orders, the PC process is better defined and structured to support the families using the service. Helping 5A: Determination making ability (3 factors, 38% participation rate). Incidents in this category relate to the determination making ability of parenting coordinators, and how that has helped participants to resolve conflict in the children’s best interests. This category includes both the determinations that were deemed helpful made by participants, as well as the authority to make a determination as a helpful factor in resolving conflict. One participant described that if their “authority had been limited to mediating or consensus-building, we wouldn’t have reached a conclusion because neither one of them would have resiled from their position.” Not having resolution to parental conflict can often mean children are left in limbo, and that is not in their best interest. One participant shared how their determination helped a child in his relationship with his father: “Co-parent conflict went down and he didn’t have to navigate the divided loyalties anymore because all of a sudden there was somebody that told him it was okay for him to go and see his dad, and then he could adjust to that.” Another participant shared how the mental health team for the child reacted to the participant’s determination that included them: “the mental health team said they found it extremely helpful to have a PC that could make that decision [about the child’s counselling attendance] because they were being FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 78 lobbied by the parents to adhere to what the parents’ agendas were.” It is clear that the authority for, and the act of, making determinations has been helpful to parenting coordinators in resolving conflict in the child’s best interest. Helping 5B: Court understanding and court orders (5 factors, 25% participation rate). One participant emphasized the court’s increased understanding of parenting coordination and the subsequent court orders as being helpful in their practice. The participant, who began parenting coordination before the Family Law Act (FLA) came into effect, said “Since the FLA came in, a lot of cases are ordered now, and although I have compassion about the process to get there, as far as the actual work goes and being able to protect the best interests of the children, I have felt that those court orders are incredibly helpful in doing that, incredibly helpful.” The participant went on to explain that well-written court orders “give an introduction so people understand what they’re getting into, but it also compels their cooperation and involvement because there’s an order behind it, which has authority.” Participants described the PC work they had done prior to the implementation of the Family Law Act in 2013, and how the court has since been helpful in setting up PCs to serve the children’s best interests. Helping 6: PC Understanding of Family Systems, Dynamics and Psychological Development (5 factors, 38% participation rate) Incidents in this category relate to the participants’ understanding of family systems, dynamics and psychological development as being helpful in resolving family conflict to best serve children. Participants who contributed to this category explained how their understanding helped them in working with families: “I think it gives a lot of comfort to parents to be able to buy into the process, to see that the parenting coordinator is operating from what is in the best interest of the child based on their particular family and our understanding of age and stage FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 79 where the child would be at developmentally.” Participants also mentioned their understanding of the research, and how their understanding of family systems has helped them to direct the parents: “I feel that it is in the best interest of the children to have two parents who have equal parenting authority in their life,” and that informs how the PC directs the parents and makes decisions. Participants’ understanding of family systems and children’s development was said to be an underlying helpful factor that influenced multiple aspects of their work as parenting coordinators. Hindering Categories Participants recounted a number of factors that hindered the resolution of family conflict. Hindering factors include unhelpful dynamics and behaviour of parents as well as financial barriers. Other hindering factors include professionals not being effective with the family and the participants themselves making mistakes. In-depth explanations of each of the hindering categories are included below. Hindering 1: Individual, Relational, and Situational Dynamics Between Parents That Hinder Successful Resolution of Conflict (26 factors, 75% participation rate) Incidents in this category represent hindering experiences recounted by participants as they relate to (A) emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues, (B) parental attitudes and behaviours, and (C) circumstances that increase opportunity for family conflict. These incidents range from one or both parents fueling current conflict due to past hurts or mental illness, to the hindering behaviours that they actively engage in during the PC process, to situations that give rise to conflicts within the family. Each subcategory is described in greater detail below each respective heading. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 80 Hindering 1A: Emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues (4 factors, 50% participation rate). Participants described working with parents who have untreated mental health issues or attachment/emotional injuries as being hindering to the PC process. Some parents use the PC process as an outlet for expressing their feelings related to those challenges rather than a collaborative venue for the betterment of their children. One participant recounted her experience of working with parents who bring their emotional injuries into parenting coordination: There is nothing about punishing [the other parent] that is in the child’s best interest. It only meets an individual need. There is nothing about punishing the other parent that the law would agree is in the child’s best interest, but the parent does not care about that. They are mad, they are hurt, and they are going to do it anyway because it will make them feel better in the moment. Another participant explained how the emotional dynamic was hindering for their PC work: “Residual anger and resentment from their separation and trial have made for an overwhelming challenge in resolving their disputes.” One participant described how one parent had personality disordered traits and it was influencing the way he interacted with his child: What I don’t think was working for the kid in this situation was they were experiencing negative messages from one of their parents about how they looked. … I suspect that [the parent] was actually getting triggered just looking at the child so that their facial expressions were showing that because it was this reminder of something that had happened that they didn’t like at all and that was symbolic of this unresolved stuff from their conflict with [the other parent]. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 81 Another shared about how a mother’s anxiety impacted the child’s resistance towards time with the other parent: “It’s one of those classic parent things that she’s not firm about [the father’s parenting time] and that her anxiety is getting in the way, then she finds it really difficult when the child shows a lot of anxiety or stress.” The mother’s anxiety impacted her parenting, which inflamed conflict between the parents regarding the father’s parenting time, and the result was increased family conflict. Participants found that untreated mental health issues and emotional injuries often complicated the parenting coordination process. This negatively impacted the ability of parenting coordinators to resolve family conflict in the best interests of the children. Hindering 1B: Hindering parental attitudes and behaviours (15 factors, 75% participation rate). Participants shared many ways in which the PC process can be impacted by active behaviours and attitudes on the part of the parents ranging from hindering to disempowering of the PC process. These behaviours include parents going to their lawyers with problems instead of to their PC, conflictual communications during disagreements, focusing on being right instead of resolving the conflict in the best way for children, a parent trying to erase the parenting authority of the other parent, and parents verbally abusing the PC. Another way in which parents disempower the process is by their lack of boundaries, for example, sending voluminous communications that were overwhelming and caused the parenting coordinator to experience burnout. One participant explained, “you just constantly are having to set up protocols. They’re constantly pushing them. It’s exhaustive. Having somebody knocking on your boundaries all the time, even if you’re really boundaried, is very hard work.” One participant recounted a situation in which a parent “was focusing on ‘but I’m right’; I’m saying ‘yes, you are right, but it doesn’t matter that you are right because it is not going to move the pieces in any FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 82 significant way’.” Another participant shared how the parents were not able to resolve a conflict largely due to the conflicted way in which they communicated: “The initial communication on the topic was very positional, so they had set themselves up with a conflict that would be difficult to withdraw from and save face.” Participants explained that when parents found ways to hinder or disempower the PC process, it became almost impossible to continue with parenting coordination. Parental behaviours, attitudes and communication styles often made the PC process difficult and prevented the successful resolution of family conflicts. Hindering 1C: Circumstances that increase opportunity for conflict (7 factors, 63% participation rate). Participants recounted circumstances or situations that increased opportunity for parental conflict, although these situations were not active behaviours on the part of the parents. Examples include: parents who come from the litigation process and have developed an adversarial approach to each other; not having a court order that mandates participation in parenting coordination; and entrenched conflict from past events between parents which characterizes their interactions and communications. One participant described a complex parenting plan that lent itself to increased conflict: “It increases the opportunity for scheduling challenges, that increases both the conflict and the cost of parenting coordination.” Regarding entrenched conflict, one participant pointed out, “if it has taken five years to get a parenting agreement, you can imagine how much conflict is in place.” Circumstances and situations often exist between parents, or pertaining to the family situation, that make it difficult for the PC to resolve conflict. Hindering 2: Financial Barriers (3 factors, 38% participation rate) One of the most common ways of stopping the PC process is for the client(s) to stop paying the PC. Due to the cost of the service, some participants raised the issue of affordability FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 83 and explained that it can be a reason for parties to stop paying. Beyond the cost of the service being a hindrance, one participant explained how finances can be used to disempower the process: “The financial barriers. I don’t mean just because it’s too much. I actually don’t mean that. I mean because it’s used as such a power, like it can disempower the process. All somebody has to do is pull the plug on paying and it disempowers the process.” When one party does not pay for the service according to the contract, such as replenishing the retainer or paying outstanding bills, participants explained how that creates an ethical dilemma. One participant explained that as soon as “payment becomes an issue, it stops the machine from moving, or it should, or if it doesn't, then boundaries become an issue.” Financial barriers can stop the PC process and therefore, PCs are not able to work with parents to resolve conflicts. Hindering 3: Other Professionals Being Ineffective or Not Collaborative (6 factors, 50% participation rate) Incidents in this category include when professionals involved with the family will not consult or share information with the PC, or question the PC’s decisions or methods. One participant described a situation in which the psychiatrist is treating one of the parents, but will not share about his or her findings or diagnoses: “I don’t know what the diagnosis is. And the psychiatrist is being very tight lipped and won’t be helpful at all… It would be helpful if we had an actual diagnosis which we don’t.” Other incidents include child specialists who are not willing to consult with the PC: “It’s very difficult to work on a file where I don’t have a child specialist who is cooperative.” PCs try to do their job in a way that keeps the best interests of the children at the forefront, and when other professionals do not collaborate with or share FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 84 information with the parenting coordinator, this increases the difficulty for the PCs to do the best job possible for the children they are serving. Hindering 4: PC challenges and Mistakes (8 factors, 50% participation rate) There were several incidents raised wherein participants brought up their own mistakes as being hindering to the PC process. Some examples include a PCs inability to focus the parents on the child’s best interests, falling into a role other than PC with the family. In one conflict, the PC noted the parents were arguing about a very minor issue, but the participant “couldn’t find a way to bring it back to the kid’s best interest other than ‘this is an unnecessary expense that you are paying me to do when this is money that would be better left in the hands of your families,’ and they didn’t care.” A PC who has a mental health background pointed out a mistake they had made: “When I think of one of the biggest challenges, and I know for myself as a mental health professional, was not to fall into a therapist role with these clients.” One participant spoke of the nature of high conflict parents, and how the PC did not make the boundaries clear enough, which resulted in a conflict that involved the child: “There’s lots of constant boundary pushing, and I had been sloppy and hadn’t reiterated clearly and transparently enough.” Other mistakes mentioned include the PC becoming triangulated in the conflict and the PC inadvertently helping a parent ‘case build’ for their return to court. When the PC makes mistakes, it is hindering to the PC process and often increases family conflict. Wish List Categories Participants were asked if there were any people, programs or further supports that would assist them in resolving family conflict in the children’s best interests. This question elicited a range of responses, indicating that participants believe additional supports are necessary for the child’s best interests to be served while resolving family conflicts. Other professionals, FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 85 additional training, collaboration, and increased education about parenting coordination were among the wishes of participants. Below, each wish list category is defined and further detail is offered. Wish List 1: Resources and Additional Professional Services (18 factors, 63% participation rate) Incidents in this category include participant wishes for the services of other cooperative professionals to be accessed by their clients, and for parents to have knowledge of resources available to them. Parenting coordinators explained that their ability to resolve family conflicts would be enhanced by a team approach with a variety of other professionals. This category has been divided into two subcategories: (A) services offered by other professionals and (B) availability and knowledge of cost-effective services. Wish List 1A: Involvement of cooperative professionals (11 factors, 50% participation rate). Participants wished for other cooperative professionals to be involved in the parenting coordination process in a variety of roles. One participant explained how a formal assessment from a mental health professional would best serve the family they work with: “I think they would benefit from a section 211 report because it would bring to light some of what the father is doing to the daughter because he is doing some things to the daughter, this is what I’m getting from the counsellor too, he is not aware of the things that he is doing that are hurting the daughter.” Parent coaching, counselling, child advocates and cooperative lawyers were among the services from other professionals whom participants also wished for. One participant shared the benefits of a one parenting coach model: “One effective parenting coach can more effectively than I can, and more cost-effectively than I can, help improve the communication between the FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 86 parents.” PCs wished for cooperative professionals to be involved with the intent of working together with the PC to resolve family conflict. Wish List 1B: Availability and knowledge of cost effective services (7 factors, 38% participation rate). Participants explained that a master list of all parenting workshops and resources in their area would be beneficial: “I think there needs to be a master list of all the parenting workshops in the lower mainland, you know, who is offering what, other than Options.” Another participant said that government funded programs often have wait lists and private services are often expensive: “often I will have parents that I'm suggesting they seek a parenting program, co-parenting counseling, or something. Sometimes I have two parents who are willing but one or both parents are saying, ‘We would, but I'm self-employed, I have no coverage, I can't afford it’.” By having access to a master list of resources with approximate prices, participants would be able to see the range of services available and the cost of those services, so they could best refer the families they work with to necessary professional services. Wish List 2: Specific and Advanced PC Trainings (4 factors, 38% participation rate) While participants recognized the value in the training they have received to be parenting coordinators, they also spoke of specific and advanced trainings that would be helpful to them. One participant wished for a toolkit of strategies to use in meetings, especially when emotions are escalated: “It is almost like people get stuck in their anger. . . so the emotional part of their brain is taking over and they are not thinking and until they come down, they can’t think.” Another participant wished for “a training that’s not just talking heads but a facilitated training” that includes workshopping issues “so that you get people contextually involved and talking about their practice.” This participant also wished to “have some of the resources, rather than going into bringing in speakers all the time, would go into bringing in facilitators” as a way of FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 87 making this advanced training happen. Participants’ wished for advanced training that encompasses a need for specific skills and a way to grow as clinicians, such as training in how to assess and create intervention plans for families entrenched in high conflict. Wish List 3: Ethics Through Collaboration (10 factors, 63% participation rate) Participants identified that parenting coordination is a difficult professional role, and that increased opportunities for peer consultation, and more refined practice standards and ethical standards, would be beneficial. Participants described the necessity for collaboration and enhanced practice standards in order to increase ethical practice. These needs appear in subcategories (A) peer consultation and learning opportunities and (B) enhanced PC practice and ethical standards. Wish List 3A: Peer consultation and learning opportunities (4 factors, 50% participation rate). The incidents in this category include participants’ wishes for opportunities to consult with others in the field. One participant specified their wish to “have a peer consultation group that’s running regularly.” Another participant spoke of peer consultation being a necessity due to the difficulty in this work: “The level of critical reflection it takes to do this work is incredibly high. You can’t maintain those levels all the time. We have blind spots, and it will take other people to find your blind spots sometimes.” Other incidents in this category include a wish for a mentoring program for new PCs, and suggestions that an online platform be created for peer consultation. Regarding mentoring, one participant stated, “I think the knowledge and skills that are needed are very unique and a lot. I wish there would be some kind of mentoring of new PCs, somebody you could actually have a trusting relationship with who could mentor you for the first three PC cases.” Participants who contributed to this FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 88 category made it clear that they see value in consulting with their peers and they wish for more opportunities to tap into the richness and depth from other experts in their field. Wish List 3B: Enhanced PC ethics and practice standards (6 factors, 50% participation rate). Participants spoke explicitly about the need for increased ethical and practice standards in PC work. One participant wished for the treatment plan to be separated from the billing practices, because right now the power is all concentrated in one place. Regarding ethical standards, While we have ethical practice guidelines and while there’s lots to put in place to encourage us to be good practitioners, because of the laundry list of bad behaviours that these clients have, it would be very easy for me, if I was edging towards the boundaries of ethical practice, to make myself look good and make them look bad and make lots of money out of the deal. That’s not okay. The participant spoke to “the diversity [of the way PC is practiced] across the spectrum of practitioners I think is unacceptable. I think there should be higher practice standards. We should be held to a higher standard of consistent practice.” A wish for all PCs to use a trauma informed lens in their work was also mentioned, as practitioner exposure to trauma when working with these high conflict families is inevitable. Mandating that PCs have extensive knowledge about children’s development and the psychological dynamics within high conflict, and for PCs to understand the root of certain parental behaviours that present in parenting coordination would be beneficial to the practice. One participant pointed out that PC practice guidelines that include assessment and treatment intervention planning would create a platform for more consistent practice in parenting coordination. Other elements such using as a trauma informed lens and having a greater understanding of parent behaviours would create a FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 89 framework for PCs, and create a higher standard for consistent practice. Increased ethical practice guidelines can help PCs do better work and be more accountable as professionals and to the families they serve. Wish List 4: Clarity in Court Orders and Parenting Plans (5 factors, 38% participation rate) The incidents in this category include wishes for clarity in court orders and parenting plans. Participants mentioned both clarity in the parenting plan itself, and clarity about the dispute resolution process and the role of the parenting coordinator. One participant pointed out “the more detailed the parenting plan is, the less cost and work that’s involved for the PC.” This participant added that when it comes to dispute resolution, “I think certainly all family lawyers should be including in their parenting plans a provision that in the event they can’t agree on a particular problem, they have to refer the matter to a parenting coordinator.” Having a parenting coordinator specified for dispute resolution allows the parents to have an opportunity at consensus-building and if that is not successful, the same professional can arbitrate. This option generally results in a prompt decision that is binding and has kept the parents out of court, an outcome that is in the best interests of their children. With clarity in the court orders and parenting plans, the parenting coordination can be more cost-effective and best serve the children when the parents are at an impasse. Wish List 5: Increased Understanding and Education About the PC Role (9 factors, 38% participation rate) Incidents in this category include wishes for increased understanding and education about the PC role for the public and for other professionals, especially those who work in the family law system, including the court and judges. One participant described how they would like the PC role to be depicted: “It’s like when you go see the doctor, you want to see someone in a white FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 90 smock with a thing around them; it’s like you give your authority to them because you put yourself in their capable hands. I would just wish that we have our designation depict that kind of safety and authority.” Participants spoke of the family law system as being adversarial, and one participant posed the question, “the children don’t have a lawyer, who is looking out for what they need?” If the public understood and viewed the role of parenting coordinators differently, participants believe that would reduce the number of conflicts ending up in court, and have a professional designated to serve the best interests of the child. Professionals wish for more education and awareness of the PC role so that more children can benefit from having a professional that works for them. Integrative Summary In this summary, the five groupings that organize the categories are expanded on and the relationship between the categories is detailed. At the end of this section, Table 3 (p. 100) is presented to show more information about the categories and groupings. Collaboration and Ethics Throughout the results, collaboration with other professionals referred to a bidirectional relationship that involved both parties influencing the process and the outcome. Some participants spoke of collaborating with a mental health professional (or team) and in these cases both the mental health professional and the PC had influence over the process. Collaboration refers to working together with, as opposed to speaking with someone to obtain information. One PC explained that “sometimes child specialists aren’t cooperative because they don’t want to end in up court,” indicating that they will not consult or collaborate with the PC. Collaborating with peers, the attorneys that represent the clients, and other professionals such as therapists and child specialists formed the helping category in collaboration. When FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 91 participants want to collaborate with others but it does not happen, they believe it is detrimental to their work as PCs. When other professionals do not adequately or effectively fulfill their role, or do not work with the PC, this contributes to a failure in the resolution of conflict and makes PCs less able to work in the child’s best interests. In instances when other professionals were not working with the PC or even being effective in their designated role, PCs added “cooperative professionals” to their wish list. PCs believe that collaborating with other professionals is imperative in the successful resolution of family conflicts. Many participants in this study believe a collaborative team approach is the only ethical way to work in the best interests of the child. Having other professionals assume specific roles allows the PC to avoid overstepping boundaries, something that is common when a PC tries to fulfill multiple roles with a family. Having the parents attend their own therapy or access resources such as parent coaching, education, or otherwise getting help with their own mental health is beneficial. However, it is important when working with high conflict families that the professionals collaborate to maximize effectiveness. A collaborative approach ensures the professionals are working towards a common goal and allows for reality checking, an important component of working with people in high conflict. In the wish list category, PCs want more learning opportunities and specifically a structured system to receive and offer peer consultation. This is placed within the ethics section because it goes beyond the assistance one may ask for in a practical sense, and into the realm of bettering the parenting coordination as a whole. Mentoring of new PCs was on the wish list. Mentoring goes beyond peer consultation in that it is a trusted relationship, typically between a more experienced PC and a newer PC, and it is meant to assist the new PC in all areas of this FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 92 unique role. Hiring a clinical supervisor is along similar lines and would allow for PCs to have a trusted relationship and designated time to work through difficulties in their work. Ethics was grouped in with collaboration because collaboration actively contributes to an environment that enables PCs to meet their ethical obligations. The current practice standards, including billing practices and practice management, are largely determined by individual PCs. A call for enhanced ethical and practice standards emerged in these findings and is detailed in wish list category 3B “Enhanced PC ethics and practice standards.” The concentration of power resting with a single individual and the associated flexibility afforded to PCs raised ethical concerns for some participants. Information and Resources It is a difficult task to make decisions that are best for the child when the two parents disagree. In those cases, which are fraught with conflict and tension, being able to obtain objective information is useful and necessary. To guide the parents, or to make a decision for the child, the information provided by sources other than the two warring parents is important for a PC to have. Information can be obtained from other professionals, and PCs provided examples of how this information helped them to resolve conflicts. One PC explained how they spoke to the child specialist: “I’m very clear that I am not relying on her decision, I am simply wanting to discuss it with her.” This is an example of obtaining information from a third party. Sometimes objective information was obtained by the PC doing their own research or through their observations. Regardless of how the information is obtained, PCs considered it a crucial element for the successful resolution of conflict in the child’s best interests. Speaking directly with the child or obtaining their views by having someone else interview them, and then working with that professional are two ways to obtain the child’s FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 93 views. One participant said, “children have a voice, not a choice” and was explicit in saying that the onus of decision making is not placed on the child, but that their voice is important in the PC process. With the enactment of the British Columbia Family Law Act, which states that the only consideration in the court’s decision is the best interest of the child, along with the PCs mandate being the same, the child’s voice and views are important and often necessary to obtain (Martinson, 2013). Some participants explained that resources for their clients would be helpful, but there is no master list or resource centre for them to shop for and compare services or prices. While the government programs are well known, they are generally free of charge and have a wait list. Finding appropriate and affordable resources for clients based on their needs is a wish for parenting coordinators, whose clients often require additional help. There were no hindering categories in this grouping, indicating that participants view obtaining information and resources as either helpful or potentially helpful. Obtaining information was deemed especially important in reference to child specialists and mental health professionals who worked with families. When other professionals provided information, particularly in instances of obtaining the child’s views, PCs believed they were best able to resolve conflict in the child’s best interests. The categories in this grouping focused on the PC obtaining information, rather than collaborating with other professionals in which both parties influenced the process and/or the decision made. Relationship with the Legal System The relationship between parenting coordination and the court was raised by many participants. The ability to make determinations was highlighted as a helping factor; participants FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 94 pointed to their ability to make determinations as instrumental in the resolution of conflict because that power often pushed the parents to reach agreement by consensus. Parenting coordination started in BC prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 2013. Once parenting coordination was situated in the legislation, PCs noted that court’s understanding of the service was greater and that this understanding translated to greater success in resolving family conflict. One PC stated that being mandated in court orders as a PC was an important factor in helping the children they serve. The courts’ understanding and active role in referring cases to parenting coordination has been helpful. In cases when court orders were not clear either about the role of the PC or in the wording of parenting plans, PCs wished for greater clarity. Participants said that interpreting legal documents was a challenging aspect of their work. Ambiguity in a parenting plan or court order is another opportunity for conflict between the parents. Participants who had experienced clear court orders and parenting plans noted that this clarity was helpful. PCs who had faced difficulty with a lack of clarity added it to their wish list, and that resulted in wish list category four. Parent Factors Parents contributed both helping and hindering factors to parenting coordination, although the number of hindering factors (29) was more than double the helping factors (12). Most of the helping factors consisted of parents reaching agreement by consensus. Cooperative behaviour was also helpful to the process. Helpful contextual factors include parents’ interest in resolving rather than prolonging conflicts, and their ability to put the children’s interests ahead of their own. Parents helped the process by actively engaging in the PC process and cooperating, and brought helpful contextual factors by their desire to reduce family conflict. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 95 The factors that made up hindering categories were more complex. Hindering category one was split into three subcategories; the first contained contextual factors that contributed to the following two subcategories. The first subcategory, titled “Individual, relationship, and situational dynamics between parents” had few incidents in number, but they were complex and incredibly challenging for PCs to overcome in their attempts to manage the resulting family conflict. PCs explained specific instances of emotional injuries contributing to family conflict (which is the basis for the factor count) but mentioned that they see the same themes repeated in many of their files. Because the PC does not serve in a therapy role, emotional or attachment based injuries are difficult to resolve within the realm of parenting coordination. After raising the hindering components of attachment injuries, participants added to their wish lists and suggested various solutions to this problem. One solution raised by PCs was to refer both parents to their own therapy, and then the PC would have access to either consult or collaborate with the therapist(s). This also led one PC to expand on their wish for the PC role to be focused on case management and decision making, and refer out tasks such as parent coaching and/or education. Participants recounted the parental attitudes and behaviours that made it difficult for PCs to resolve family conflict in the next subcategory (Hindering 1B). Participants made reference to the emotional injuries summarized in the first subcategory and how those actively played out in the parents’ behaviours and attitudes in specific instances. Due to the nature of data collection, I asked the participants for specific incidents to be recounted in detail, and then I extracted the factors from those incidents. This approach favoured PCs’ recounting of active behaviours and attitudes of parents, creating a much higher count of incidents and factors of the parents’ behaviour in the PC process. It is important to note the relationship between the subcategories; FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 96 PCs believed that emotional injuries or attachment based injuries mentioned in hindering 1A created the basis for behaviours and attitudes that played out in the continued family conflict, summarized in 1B. This represents how the ECIT format slightly favours the PC process over the context; explaining the context is more abstract and difficult to recount in specific detail during the interview. One participant who had not contributed to category 1A pointed out during their second interview that they appreciated the contributions and quotes in that category, and that the category accurately recounted their experience. The last hindering subcategory, “Circumstances that increase opportunity for conflict,” was closely related to both subcategories discussed above. PCs shared circumstances or situations that increased opportunity for conflict, and their belief that these situations arose from emotional injuries or the mental health challenges recounted in hindering 1A. These factors were also contextual, and gave rise to difficulties in the process. Financial barriers are included in this grouping as a parent factor that is hindering to parenting coordination. Parenting coordination in British Columbia is offered privately, and although it is intended to be cheaper than litigation, it remains an expensive service. Sometimes financial barriers are present because the service is simply not affordable. For those who can afford it, and particularly if they have a court order that mandates parenting coordination, not paying the PC becomes one of the few ways to stop the process. The parties share the cost of parenting coordination, sometimes in an equal fashion and other times each party pays a percentage according to their respective incomes. This payment format is necessary in parenting coordination because this process cannot happen without the participation of both parents. If one parent stops paying, the process usually stops. Continuing to work on a file with only one parent paying raises ethical concerns for the PC of bias, or the appearance thereof. The financial FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 97 aspects of parenting coordination encompass more than a financial transaction, and instead represent one of the few ways that parents can stop the PC from working. PC Factors The helping categories that covered the strategies used by PCs made up a large component of helping factors in this study. The largest category in this section, titled “3D: Strategies used throughout parenting coordination,” consisted of 30 factors. These strategies were employed with parents at various stages of the process, including contact with the parents outside a point of contention. The strategies used by PCs included coaching, guiding, challenging, and educating parents. More strategies used by PCs in specific instances were covered in subcategories that included meetings (3A), consensus-building (3B), determination making (3C), and billing (3E). Much of the BCPCRS guidelines (2013) and the process-oriented objectives were expressed by participants as factors in the category described above. These strategies are helpful in the PC process, and using these strategies allows PCs to advance through steps to resolve conflict. Asking participants to recall specific incidents made these strategies, as part of the PC process, easier to recount in detail than contextual factors that contributed as helping or hindering elements in the resolution of conflict. PCs’ understanding of family systems, dynamics and psychological development were detailed in the sixth helping category. Prior to completing the first interview, all PCs completed a background information sheet. One of the questions asked PCs what background training or experiences have been helpful in their role as PCs. All participants in this study mentioned their training in family systems and/or child development as being helpful to their work as a PC, but this was more often a contextual factor than an active contributor during the PC process. Some participants were able to recall specific instances when it helped in their cases, and those factors FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 98 were described in the findings. PCs believe that having an understanding of family systems and particularly children’s age and stage of development is a foundational element of parenting coordination. As has been stated by participants in this study, it is easy for the parenting coordinator to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The category covering PC challenges and mistakes discusses ways in which participants made errors, and they also recounted how they learned from those mistakes. The very emergence of this category indicates that PCs engage in reflection; as one PC pointed out “the level of critical reflection it takes to do this work well is incredibly high.” This critical reflection is an important part of sound professional practice, particularly in this complex role. After discussing the ways in which they made mistakes, PCs contributed to various wish list categories. The category titled “Specific and Advanced PC Trainings” could have fit into grouping one “Ethics and Collaboration,” because continued training and learning is part of ethical practice. However, it is placed in this grouping because it relates directly to the PC skills and strategies that are used with clients. Some PCs wished for more specific skills to have more tools for the toolbox they use with high conflict parents; as one participant pointed out, “Sometimes professionals are using their regular toolbox with high conflict parents, and that just doesn’t work,” pointing out the need for a specifically tailored skill set due to the unique presentation of families entrenched in conflict. Other participants applied broader ideas to future training, such as the format of training being a workshop style versus the more common training that is a transfer of knowledge. Transfer of knowledge is important and common in basic PC training, but PCs were hoping for learning opportunities wherein they could work through scenarios they may be faced with. This FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT type of training allows for professionals to put their heads together and learn from each other, rather than a traditional format that may have one speaker passing on knowledge. This may be particularly beneficial for PCs, who are often experienced professionals with different backgrounds and unique skill sets. This supports the workshop format that would allow a structured opportunity for PCs to learn from each other, as well as from the facilitator who conducts the training. 99 FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 100 Table 3 Categories with Grouping Descriptions Grouping Helping Categories Hindering Categories Wish List Categories Ethics & Collaboration: Collaborating with other professionals is an important component of ethical practice in PC work. PCs believe they are best able to resolve conflict with the collaboration of other professionals. This grouping includes a wish for cooperative professionals, which is also related to obtaining information (grouping 2). 2A: Collaborating with the parties’ lawyers (4 factors, 38% PR) 3: Other professionals not being collaborative or effective (6 factors, 50% PR) 1A: Involvement of cooperative professionals (11 factors, 50% PR) Information & Resources: This grouping is related to collaboration, but is focused more on obtaining helpful information, and using other professionals as resources. Obtaining the child’s views was a key factor for PCs in their goal to meet the best interests of the child in the face of conflict. 1A: Information obtained directly from 3rd parties (8 factors, 63% PR) Grouping Helping Categories Relationship with the Legal System: PCs highlighted the relationship between parenting coordination and the court, and the ability of PCs to make determinations, as helpful factors. PCs also wished 5A: Determination making ability (3 factors, 38% PR) 2B: Collaborating with peers (4 factors, 38% PF) 3A: Peer consultation and learning opportunities (8 factors, 63% PR) 2C: Collaborating with other professionals (5 factors, 25% PR) 3B: Enhanced PC and Ethics Standards (5 factors, 50% PR) 5: Increased understanding and education (for stakeholders) about the PC role (9 factors, 38% PR) 1B: Information obtained through observation and research (5 factors, 50% PR) 1C: Obtaining the child’s views (3 factors, 38% PR) 5B: Court understanding and court orders (5 factors, 25% PR) Hindering Categories Wish List Categories 4: Clarity in court orders and parenting plans (6 factors, 50% PR) FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 101 for a clear mandate when being court ordered. PCs indicated that clear wording in parenting plans would reduce conflict between parents. Parent Factors: PCs attributed parent factors to be helpful sometimes (12 factors), but parent factors were recounted more than twice as often as being a hindrance to the resolution of conflict (29 factors). 4: Helpful parent behaviours, characteristics, and attitudes (12 factors, 63% PR) 1A: Emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues (4 factors, 50% PR) 1B: Hindering parental attitudes and behaviours (15 factors, 75% PR) 1C: Circumstances that increase opportunity for conflict (7 factors, 63% PR) 2: Financial Barriers (3 factors, 38% PR) Grouping Helping Categories Hindering Categories Wish List Categories PC Factors: This grouping includes the strategies and knowledge of the PC, which participants identified as being instrumental in resolving family conflict. Sometimes PCs made mistakes or faced challenges that they could not overcome while trying to resolve issues. Some PCs wished for nuanced trainings to address the challenges they face with families. 3 STRATEGIES 4: PC Challenges and mistakes (8 factors, 50% PR) 2: Specific and Advanced PC Trainings (4 factors, 38% PR) 3A: Strategies used in meetings with parents (2 factors, 25% PR) 3B: Consensusbuilding phase (6 factors, 50% PR) 3C: Determination making phase (8 factors, 50% PR) 3D: Strategies used throughout FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 102 parenting coordination (30 factors, 75% PR) 3E: Billing strategies (6 factors, 38% PR) 6: PC understanding of family systems, dynamics & psychological development (5 factors, 38% PR) Successful Resolution of Conflict Participants were asked to give their definition of successful resolution of family conflict that is in the best interests of the children. Participants referenced the parents communicating well and following a parenting plan with only minor bumps as one indicator of resolution. Three participants stated that an indicator of successful resolution is when the parents make decisions by consensus, and thus the PC does not have to impose a decision on them. As one participant stated, if the parents agree and reach a decision together, they are happier and “then that is what the children will experience” from their parents about the disputed issue. Three participants (all with backgrounds in mental health) identified that a sign of successful resolution of conflict is when parents use the set of skills they have learned with the PC, and thus the family needs the PC less: “Success is when my phone doesn’t ring and they use the set of skills I’ve taught them.” Many participants referred to the parents having a dispute resolution framework that keeps the children out of their conflict, and gives the parents a clear and predictable process to resolve their disputes. One participant indicated how resolution of conflict would show in the child: “the children are able to at least function, and at best, thrive in FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 103 active relationship with both parents.” For this PC, seeing the child in active relationship with both parents and with minimal exposure to parental conflict is the definition of successful resolution of conflict. While many participants mentioned that the parents effectively and cooperatively communicating with each other is a sign of success in conflict resolution, one participant pointed out that their goal is often to disengage the parents so that the family gets a “break” from conflict. Based on this participant’s consultation with experts, they believe that this break (ideally an eleven-week period) from conflict gives the parents and the children a necessary hiatus so that their brains can recalibrate, leaving room for new narratives to be created that are not based in conflict and hyperarousal. The participant pointed out that more good things can come from this process, but if this disengagement from family conflict does not occur, this is an indication of failure with that family. Although the participants mentioned various ways in which they view success, there were common threads among participant responses. One of the main threads was that children are kept out of the disputes. Another indicator of success is that conflict is best resolved when parents reach agreement by consensus. PCs identified that they believe lots of good things can come out of their work, but most have a minimum goal of sheltering children from conflict and trying to help parents to resolve their disputes by consensus. Conclusion The PC community has effectively developed ways to solve problems in the best interests of children, and these are evidenced in the helping categories. The hindering categories include challenges they have not yet figured out how to resolve. The wish list items identify what PCs believe could be useful in helping them to better serve the best interests of children. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 104 Participants contributed more than double the number of factors to the helping categories (106) compared to the number of hindering (44) and wish list items (47). This imbalance is largely related to PCs describing the strategies they use (52 factors) in PC work that contributed to the successful resolution of family conflict in the child’s best interests. The groupings organize the categories (see Table 3, p. 100) in a way that ties together the categories that have elements in common, and how the categories are related across the three domains. Table 3 is an expanded version of Table 2; it briefly expands on each of the groupings. This table also includes the number of factors and the participation rates by percentage for each category. Collaboration and Ethics (grouping 1) is closely related to Information and Resources (grouping 2). These groupings were organized based on the intent of the PC. Collaboration and ethics was related to the degree to which the other professional influenced the process and decision in working towards the children’s best interests. Collaboration referred to the two professionals working together, with both parties influencing the process and the decision; for example, the PC and the mental health team together arriving at a treatment plan for a child needing services. Information and Resources was focused on the PC obtaining information, sometimes from other professionals but also from other sources, when working through conflict with parents. This often required the cooperation of other professionals, but the intent of PC was to gather information for the purposes of their own decision, rather than collaborate with the other person to reach a decision together. PCs varied slightly in how they defined successful resolution of family conflict, but generally they indicated that children being kept out of their parents’ disputes was one indication of success. Most (but not all) participants also referenced the parents following the parenting plan and reaching decisions by consensus as a sign of successful resolution of family conflict. If FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 105 PCs are able to help families in these ways, they believe children’s best interests are served in that they are shielded from conflict and able to exist in a more cooperative family dynamic. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 106 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION This study explored the helping and hindering factors that impacted the successful resolution of family conflict in a way that met the children’s best interests. By interviewing parenting coordinators and analyzing the critical incidents and factors that impacted their work, this study resulted in a broad overview of factors that influenced PC practice in British Columbia. In this chapter, I will discuss the findings of this study, as well as how they relate to the existing literature about parenting coordination. The implications of these findings, as well as the limitations of this research and the potential for future research on the subject will be discussed last, followed by a conclusion. Summary of the Research Problem Parenting coordination is a role that remains in its infancy, having been practiced in British Columbia for approximately a decade. The detrimental impact of ongoing conflict on children’s long-term well-being and adjustment are well established (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; Johnston, 1994; Kelly, 2000). Research on this intervention, in which professionals are tasked to act in the children’s best interests while attempting to resolve family conflict is crucial to improve all aspects of the role. Without research on PC work, the inner workings and outcomes of PC efforts are largely unknown. To better the parenting coordination and to improve on ways to meet the children’s best interests stands to help children caught in difficult family circumstances. Research to date on parenting coordination includes various surveys that collected demographic information (Brewster et al., 2011; Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008) and some studies surveying the methods that parenting coordinators use in their practice (Belcher-Timme et al., 2013; Fieldstone et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2012). Two studies consisted of interviews with FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 107 parenting coordinators (Beck et al., 2008; Hayes, 2010). Other studies have investigated rates of re-litigation after the parties had begun PC work, and there has been research conducted on various pilot projects (Cyr, Macé, Quigley, 2017; Henry et al., 2009; Higuchi & Lally, 2014). This research is valuable to parenting coordination, but due to the jurisdictional differences that impact PC work, it is necessary to conduct research in the local jurisdiction. This is the first study on parenting coordination in British Columbia. This inquiry sought to discover not only what factors helped and hindered parenting coordinators in their attempts at resolving family conflict. Inquiries were made about other supports, programs or people they wished for to help them in their difficult role. Being asked this wish-list question, professionals in the field had an opportunity to identify possible improvements or resources that could help them and the families they serve in the future. Cross-Validation with the Literature Many of the patterns and facts that emerged in this study corroborate findings from several studies on parenting coordination in North America. The following topics are discussed below: factors that impact resolution of conflict, strategies used with parents, process and context, and education for stakeholders. Factors that Impact Resolution of Conflict Fieldstone et al. (2011) completed a survey of PCs and in the results, described the top factors that PCs found helpful and the top four factors contributing to unsuccessful PC cases. The factors from my study were not measured in order of priority, so it is not possible to compare the top factors from the Fieldstone et al. (2011) survey and the factors in these results. Below are two tables to show the relationship between the top factors that Fieldstone et al. found impacted successful resolution and those in this study. The top helping factors listed in Table 4 FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 108 Table 4 Helping Factors Fieldstone et al. (2011) Factors Grouping from this Study Years of PC experience PC Factors Skills and PC interventions PC Factors Improved skills for PC process PC Factors PC training received PC Factors Court support for the process Relationship with the Legal System from the Fieldstone et al. (2011) study correspond to two groupings in this study, namely PC Factors and Relationship with the Legal System. The hindering factors resulting from the Fieldstone et al. (2011) study fit into specific categories (as opposed to general groupings) that were formed in this study (Table 5). The top helping factors fitting into the overall groupings from this study indicates that those topics emerged in these results as well. In the hindering realm, the factors also fit into categories from this study. This specificity shows that the top hindering factors in the Fieldstone et al. (2011) study were factors made explicit by my participants. Overall, the resulting factors from the Fieldstone et al. (2011) study fitting into groupings and categories of this study represents a corroboration of factors that influence the successful and unsuccessful resolution of conflict. This corroboration further confirms that the findings from this study are consistent with the existing literature on parenting coordination. Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) conducted a survey of PCs practicing in North America. Along with various strategies and interventions discussed below, the authors found that formal legislation for parenting coordination contributed to the successful resolution of conflict. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 109 Table 5 Hindering Factors Fieldstone et al. (2011) Factors Category titles from this Study Co-parents unresolved issues Hindering 1A: Emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues and/or Hindering 1B: Hindering parental attitudes and behaviours Untreated substance abuse or mental health issues Hindering 1A: Emotional injuries and untreated mental health issues Intervention of attorneys Hindering 3: Other professionals not being collaborative or effective Inability or unwillingness to pay Hindering 2: Financial Barriers This emerged in the results of my study as a helping factor in the grouping ‘Relationship with the Legal System.’ Formal legislation in the BC Family Law Act (2011) describes the PC role and assigns authority for PCs to act as arbitrators within a specific scope of issues. Participants in my study believe this legislation contributes to the successful resolution of conflict as a contextual component. Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) pointed out that in their survey, they did not give PCs the option to choose ‘arbitration’ as a helpful component for resolving conflict because not all jurisdictions allow PCs arbitrative powers and participants spanned many jurisdictions across North America. Strategies Used with Parents One of the main objectives of parenting coordination is successful resolution family of conflict. PCs use various strategies and interventions to that end, and several of those emerged in the results of this study. This section will discuss the factors that emerged in my study and the corresponding factors from other PC studies (Belcher-Timme et al., 2013; Hayes et al., 2012). FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 110 The PCs that completed the survey by Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) endorsed the following interventions and strategies as effective in resolving conflict: teaching communication skills to parents; educating parents about the impacts of high conflict on children. Participants in my study recounted several strategies and interventions used to help the parties resolve conflict that corresponded with these findings. Teaching communication skills to parents was recounted in detail by participants in my study. They shared various techniques to serve this function, including teaching the parents skills for email writing. Along with the skills in communication, PCs also believe that an effective approach to resolve communication difficulties was to put in place a protocol for how (what modality) and when (timelines for communication and replies) parents should communicate. Educating parents about the impact of conflict on their children was summarized in the strategies used by PCs throughout parenting coordination (full description can be found in the results: Helping category three). Although PCs implemented this at various points throughout the process, the most common time for this education piece was during the consensus building phase. Participants recounted instances when they used education about conflict, and how it was impacting the children, as an encouragement for parents to resolve the dispute together. Hayes et al. (2012) found in their survey that input from mental health professionals, lawyers and children was an effective intervention for PCs. In my study, these same factors emerged although the categories were more nuanced. Input from professionals included gathering information or collaboration, wherein the PC worked with the professional. This pertained to both the PCs’ contact with lawyers and mental health professionals. Getting input FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 111 from the children was either done directly, or by having a child specialist meet with the child and then obtaining the child’s views from them. Process and Context Hayes et al. (2012) used Bronfenbrenner’s person, process, context and time (PPCT) model to create their survey. The first part of the survey collected demographic information about the ‘person’ (the PC). The second portion asked about the parenting coordination process. The third part covered the contextual factors that contribute to the resolution of conflict. The last component included in the survey was the length of time PC cases lasted. My study did not use a survey instrument. Participants were given a short background information questionnaire to fill out prior to the interview. This questionnaire corresponded with the ‘people’ part of the PPCT model used by Hayes et al. (2012). In answer to the questions about helping and hindering factors during interviews in this study, many responses were related to both PC process and the context in which PCs work with these families. PCs were not asked specifically about the process and the context, but rather this pattern emerged during data analysis. Process elements seemed easier to recall for participants and amounted to more factors than context; however, the contextual components were complex and impacted the PC process in many ways. This study did not collect data regarding timing or the length of time PC cases lasted, although some participants raised the point that timing can be a key factor in being able to successfully resolve family conflict. It is interesting to note that although this study was not based on Bronfrenbrenner’s model and used a different approach than Hayes et al. (2012), analysis of the results followed an inductive process that fit various aspects of that model. This FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 112 is an indication that the results of this study followed similar patterns to existing literature on parenting coordination. Education for Stakeholders In a survey completed by judges, lawyers and PCs in Florida (Fieldstone et al., 2012) there was some confusion about the scope of the PC. One of the findings that emerged was the importance of education for stakeholders. The authors described the confusion that arose when judges expected PCs to create parenting schedules but PCs felt this was outside their scope. The authors also found that judges were often not screening for domestic violence to determine if a referral to parenting coordination was appropriate for each case. It appears that a lack of education about the role (despite legislation) can lead to confusion for both the PCs and the other stakeholders that are involved with parenting coordination and the families engaged in the service. Increased education about parenting coordination for various stakeholders was a wish of participants in my study. With parenting coordination being a fairly new role, participants stated that makes education even more important. Educating people about all aspects of parenting coordination would increase recognition and help serve children who are negatively impacted by high conflict divorce. Participants believe that education for mental health professionals about parenting coordination would increase the chance that clients who need the service are referred to the appropriate and qualified providers. This is particularly important if a professional is attempting to work with a high conflict family and he or she is not adequately trained or prepared for the unique challenges that these families present. Increased education for legal professionals would FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 113 assist in appropriate PC referrals. Education could also increase the chance for attorneys to understand the process and be a support once their client is in the PC process. New Findings This research study was unique in that it was the first study on parenting coordination in British Columbia. The jurisdictional differences, the way the role is situated, and the political climate make these findings ‘new’ as they pertain to parenting coordination in British Columbia. However, agreement and corroboration with existing literature and empirical research indicate that much of these results are not new as they pertain to the role. These findings contribute to the literature by highlighting the nuances in parenting coordination. The wish-list categories that emerged are an asset and a unique contribution of this study; learning what other supports, people or programs would be helpful to parenting coordinators is valuable for a role that is experiencing growth. These findings, discussed below, represent some of the areas that PCs believe additional guidance and support would benefit parenting coordination. Growth in a New Role There is legislation for the scope of practice, and there are aspects of the parenting coordination that are well established, such as the segment of the population PCs serve, and their mandate to act in the best interests of the child. PCs follow aspirational guidelines, operate with a PC agreement, and the Roster Society (in conjunction with the legislation) ensures that members meet stringent qualification criteria. As well, there is a committee made up of roster members designated to take complaints from the public. These areas, in addition to the enshrinement of parenting coordination in the Family Law Act (2011), have grounded the role securely. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 114 With the roots of parenting coordination established, it is recognized that parenting coordination is still a relatively new role, and like anything new, there is room for growth and improvement. Key elements that define other professions, such as psychology and law, are not in place for parenting coordination. Parenting coordination is not regulated, a common trait of a profession that ensures the public interest is a priority. At this time, the recourse for the public against parenting coordinators is through the courts, whereas regulated professions are responsible for discipline of their members. Another element seen in professions is the idea of orientation; several theories inform social work and psychology, but parenting coordination lacks a family of recognized theoretical orientations. As the role continues to develop, empirical research is needed for parenting coordination and it is possible that this research will allow claims to be made about efficacy and how the role serves the public interest. My interaction with the PC community, as well as my interaction with participants and the board, has proven that PCs are interested in continuing to better parenting coordination. One participant reiterated that as practitioners, “what we need is support, in a non-judgmental way, for how we can make things better. We need space to create accountability and learning.” So that raises the question: what is that going to look like for the betterment of parenting coordination and to help the practitioners, the families they serve, and ultimately to satisfy their mandate of working in the child’s best interests? Some factors, as they related to process and context in parenting coordination, emerged with strength and uniformity throughout data analysis. The results are informative not only in what was found, but also in what was not found. These missing elements, in combination with several wish list items, bring attention to the areas of parenting coordination that did not emerge FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 115 with consistency in the results. The following sections include discussion of the relationship with the court, ethics, assessment, case planning and case aims. Relationship with the Court The relationship between the court and the and parenting coordination is clear in the literature, in the empirical research, and in the judgments made. The enshrinement of parenting coordination in the Family Law Act (2011) creates a solid foundation and offers clarity about the role of PCs, and their scope of practice, and covers many of the necessary and important details about the service. With the legislation in place, judges are more likely to know about the service and have an idea of what cases are appropriate for parenting coordination. When a judge mandates parenting coordination in an order, the parties have a greater understanding of the PC role and scope, and it gives the PC and/or the parties an authorized order that mandates participation. By contrast, if the parties choose to come to parenting coordination and there is no court order, but one party decides to stop paying or participating in the process, there is no recourse to reengage him or her. Having arbitrative powers is one defining element of parenting coordination. Without this binding judgment-making ability, PCs would be limited to a mediation process. There are some jurisdictions wherein PCs do not have arbitration power, and Sullivan (2008) believes that the PC role is less effective without that power. The determination-making process is included in the grouping ‘PC Factors’ because it is a strategy used by PCs in their work. The ability to make determinations sets PCs apart from other professional roles and is a unique and defining element of parenting coordination. A clear court order/parenting plan makes the job of the PC more efficient and costeffective because they can act as enforcers of what is written (Neville, 2013). Interpretation of FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 116 the order can be both difficult and costly in the PC process; because it gives the parents more opportunity for conflict, interpretation is a daunting task for many PCs. Participants in this study mentioned that they want more clarity in court orders as well as parenting plans, and more than one participant stated that interpreting court orders is one of the most challenging aspects of PC work. PCs wanted the specifics of the parenting plan to be clear, their appointment/role to be clear, and the process for dispute resolution to be explicit in the legal documents. In the case M. H. v. C. S. (2013) argued in the Supreme Court of BC for the termination of a PC contract, Mr. Justice Butler spoke about the role of a PC when it comes to interpretation of orders. He said that PCs will often have to work with unclear documents: “Coordinators will likely be appointed by court orders that are not crystal clear or by way of agreements that have some room for interpretation. . . . the attempt to specify the scope of authority of the coordinator is not only a permissible part of the scope of work of a coordinator; it is an important step that a coordinator must take at the commencement of each assignment.” In his ruling in the case M. H. v. C. S. (2013), Mr. Justice Butler also recognized that “given the way in which coordinators will be appointed, it is likely that there will often be some uncertainty. It would undermine the potential benefits of the parenting coordinator process if a coordinator could not attempt to clarify the scope of his or her work without referring the parties back to court.” Based on these comments, the judiciary expects parenting coordinators to undertake the clarification and interpretation of legal documents, and PCs can expect that those documents will not always be as clear as they likely prefer. Belcher-Timme et al. (2013) found that interpreting legal documents was rated as an effective intervention by PCs, and suggested that trainings focus on this intervention, especially for mental health professionals. Based on the findings in other jurisdictions and the clarity FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 117 offered by the judiciary, interpretation of legal documents is expected of PCs. Additional training in this area could help PCs in British Columbia who generally find this a difficult component of their work. Ethics It is recognized that parenting coordinators come from diverse professional backgrounds, and the lengthy training required to become a legal professional versus a mental health professional is vastly different. All professionals on the roster have obtained specific training in parenting coordination, but this is often measured in hours rather than measured in years (as their foundational professional training is). These differences, along with the flexibility afforded to individual practitioners, leads to a wide variation in the way the parenting coordination is practiced. Ethical guidelines are often referred to in the PC guidelines in concrete ways; for example, the PC should use a transparent process and avoid bias or favoritism, or the appearance of those. However, ethics cannot be fully encompassed by stating what not to do, or by following rules of thumb such as maintaining transparent and balanced communication with the parties. Professional PCs should pursue ethical behaviour in a proactive fashion and stretch beyond the dos and don’ts. In this section, the meaning of ethics is defined as the moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour, or the conducting of an activity. While there are some ethical guidelines for PCs, there is also a lot of flexibility in the way individual practitioners conduct themselves and their practice. The BCPCRS (2013) guidelines use the terms may, should, and must throughout: may indicates a guideline that is optional; should indicates that a PC needs good reason to deviate from that guideline; and must indicates the guideline is mandatory. Ethics, by its very FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 118 definition, leaves a lot of responsibility in the hands of each practitioner; ethics is an area that can quickly become gray for busy professionals who often wear many hats. These findings of the current study indicate that PCs are calling for greater guidance in how they structure their PC work, as well as for support throughout the difficulties faced in the process. Something more than aspirational guidelines is needed to stipulate how to practice ethically and effectively with these families. There are ways to implement a model of practice, or “standardization,” without limiting the interventions or creative solutions that can be used with families. A model of practice could include assessment, goal setting, and steps for reassessment. The interventions used within the realm of reaching those goals would remain the choice of the practitioner. In the Washington, DC, program (Lally, Higuchi, & Joyner-Hall, 2014), supervision and mentorship followed a model similar to training in law. PCs had a mentor who worked closely with them, including sitting in on their meetings with parents at the beginning. Eventually, the mentor remained closely involved but the new PCs gained more autonomy as they progressed in their cases. This model was assumed in the DC project because it is recognized that parenting coordination is a difficult, complex role and mentoring is beneficial and necessary. The BCPCRS guidelines (2013) state, “a PC should participate in peer consultation and/or mentoring to receive feedback and support on cases” (p. 3). The British Columbia roster society has a requirement of ten years of practice as well as background professional requirements and specific training in parenting coordination, but does not have a supervision or mentorship program in place for members. While ten years of practice working with family conflict is surely helpful, experience by itself does not equate to quality of practice. To serve a clientele plagued with high conflict dynamics, PCs must continually ask themselves how their ethical principles FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 119 translate into their active practice. With substantial flexibility and freedom in the way parenting coordination is practiced, this ethical responsibility lands on the shoulders of each individual practitioner. A mentoring program for new PCs that join the roster would be an implementation that exemplifies higher ethical standards. This would also usher new roster members onto the roster by demonstrating the high standards of practice. Creating structured platforms for peer support gives PCs access to meet the recommendations in the guidelines. This could be structured in small peer groups or as a secure online platform to make it accessible for professionals that may be limited by time or distance constraints. Beyond the potential implications that are posed by minimal ethical guidance or practice standards to families and children, there are other risks; a wide variation of practice and no standard rate or fee for PC services leaves both PCs and the role itself vulnerable. One participant commented that “there is no orientation of this profession that is obvious in other professions.” The objectives are clear in the BCPCRS guidelines (2013), and stated in the overview of parenting coordination: “The objective of the parenting coordination process is to assist parents in high conflict circumstances to protect and sustain safe, healthy and meaningful parent-child relationships by e) Educating parents about children’s needs and the effect of parental conflict on them; f) Implementation of parenting plans; g) Monitoring compliance with the details of the plan; and h) Resolving conflicts regarding the children and the parenting plan in a timely manner.” FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 120 Clear objectives give PCs a starting place, and the strategies used by PCs emerged in this study. One area that did not emerge with consistency from the data was around the topics of assessment, case planning, goal setting, reassessment and evaluation. To draw a comparison, strategies used in a formal mediation or during informal mediation in the PC process are often targeted at a specific timeline. For example, it is common to book a one-day formal mediation or for a PC to set timelines during the consensus building stage. The PC term is typically 12 to 24 months. Terms of this length are not common for other services, thus adding another unique trait to parenting coordination. A consequence of the combination of a lengthy contract term and very flexible practice standards is that cases can easily go by without direction and command by the PC. Although by definition, ethics are moral principles that guide individuals, more detailed practice standards that enshrine ethical principles can alert practitioners to certain standards and create a higher minimum expectation. With diversity among practitioners and their training backgrounds, it cannot be assumed that there is a level playing field for ethical practice. Basic PC training, or the number of years a practitioner has worked with high conflict does not, in itself, increase ethical competence. There are PCs who hire clinical supervisors, who engage with the research, and who go beyond the minimum requirements for continuing education. There are PCs who read the guidelines and ensure they are adequately satisfying those guidelines that specify what a PC ‘should’ do in their practice not just what a PC ‘must’ do. However, unless a complaint is made by the public, it is likely that following these guidelines is largely the responsibility of the practitioner and would otherwise not come to anyone’s attention. Responsibility (both ethical and practical) falling to the individual practitioner is the norm in many professions. Ethics and ethical practice as they relate to parenting coordination are FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 121 arguably more important in this role than other roles; PCs are mandated to work towards the best interests of children who are at risk. Assessment and Case Planning Guidelines for the AFCC (2005) and the BCPCRS (2013) both mention the assessment function of PCs. The AFCC guidelines state that the PC should review relevant records and “analyze the impasses and issues as brought forth by the parents” (p. 8). The BCPCRS guidelines (2013) refer to the assessment function of a PC relating to family violence, substance abuse or mental health issues, and assessment of how the practical aspects of parenting coordination should be carried out. The latter point discussed the option of joint or individual meetings, who else to include in the process, and other practical details of that nature. However, in either set of guidelines, there is no reference to assessment of the family from a case planning or goal setting framework. There is no reference to the re-assessment function that is typical in of other services. In simplified terms, legal professionals assess the case of a client and then create one strategy (or more) for how to proceed. The success of that strategy can then be measured based on the outcome, perhaps the result of the negotiations or the court decision. In the mental health field it is typical to assess a client’s case and then use professional judgment and/or collaboration with the client to create a treatment plan. This can include goals, treatment interventions, and direction for the therapy. It also gives the professional a way to measure if they have been successful or effective in their treatment. This planning in both the legal and mental health professions gives clear direction to both the clients and the professionals, and it also gives rise to accountability checking for the professionals. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 122 Sullivan (2014) discusses the creation, development, and management of a PC practice and describes a typical case trajectory. He recommends that PCs approach their cases with specific procedures and methods, including putting in place protocols and ‘training’ the parents early in the PC term. Sullivan (2014) suggests that PC cases are intensive at the beginning, but if the initial work is effective then the case will taper into a maintenance phase and eventually a management phase with minimal PC involvement. Although the author does not give specifics about the assessment and goal setting that is characteristic of a therapy approach, he does provide various tips and suggestions for PCs to be effective in their cases. Nothing consistent emerged in the results of this study to indicate that parenting coordination is operating within a framework that is easily identified and characteristic of both the mental health and legal fields. Turning back to the guidelines, Guideline VI of the AFCC (2005) guidelines states, “the PC shall assess the parties in reducing harmful conflict and in promoting the best interests of the children consistent with the roles and functions of a PC” (p. 8). The roles and functions of the PC detailed in guideline VI include assessment, education, case management, conflict management, and decision-making. These same roles are identified in the BCPCRS (2013), and each of those roles includes points of greater detail within it. For example, guideline 8.09 provides detail about the education function: a PC should inform the parties about child development, parenting skills, the impact of conflict on children, communication skills, dispute resolution skills, and when appropriate, divorce research. Educating high-conflict parents on all the topics above would likely require a strategic and proactive approach by the PC and/or referral to a professional who specializes in parent education. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 123 The general trend in these results indicates that PCs are more likely to respond to disputed issues between the parents as they arise than they are to be proactive in implementing a planned approach that adequately satisfies each of the roles and functions of the PC. To fulfill the roles of the PC in a proactive fashion would likely increase the cost of services, at least at the outset and perhaps throughout the PC term. Some PCs favoured the collaborative team-based approach or added this approach to their wish list; others stated a preference that the PC act as a case manager with other professionals carrying out specific roles such as therapist or parenting coach. These are often services provided by professionals who specialize in one area and charge less than PCs. The advantage to acting as a case manager in this approach is that the PC is the only professional with the ability to make a determination. Initiation and implementation of effective team management by the PC so that these professionals are working together rather than working at cross-purposes is an important function of PCs according to Coates et al. (2004). The difficulty with the range of roles and functions that a PC serves is that it is a lot for one professional to fulfill, particularly while managing high conflict parents. Without a working model or detailed practice standards, the PC role is practiced differently by different individuals and all PCs have their own discretion in how they carry out their role. PCs in this study called for practice standards that provide guidance beyond aspirational guidelines. When discussing what helps PCs in resolving conflict, one PC explained the model they use over a two-year term that included assessment, goals for each quarter, accountability checks for the family and the practitioner, and how they manage the family and the process throughout the PC term. The professional says that this model and transparent process involves the parents in the goal setting, keeps them accountable, and gives the PC process direction. Without engaging a model for their work, the PC stated, “expecting the parents to ‘passively learn’ how to do better, based on being FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 124 punished financially [by PC fees] is quite an expectation and not very realistic.” Some PCs mentioned goals for their cases but generally, the results in this study did not produce any trend or indication that PCs have practice standards that give them adequate guidance to manage the complex aspects of their PC cases. Assessing Clients and Resulting Aims Families are diverse in behaviour and in the expression of symptoms, but the underlying issues plaguing high conflict families have many similarities. This belief was supported throughout data analysis. Participants had difficulty capturing the emotional and attachment based injuries of their clients into specific incidents or factors, but alluded to general themes that gave rise to the many hindering behaviours and attitudes presented by parents. I did not find any consistencies across models for PC work in my study. Participants listed the ways in which they resolved conflict or the modalities they used, which are stated in the guidelines. These interventions and strategies were the prominent areas in which the results from this study were consistent with existing empirical PC research. Assessment followed by an aim for each case would provide a framework for practice. Participants were asked for their definition of successful resolution of conflict in the child’s best interests. One participant was explicit that success was reaching their goal of the parents disengaging, and thus there being a hiatus from family conflict for at least an eleven week period. Another participant was clear in saying that they assess the family at the beginning of the process and make a decision about their goals - namely whether or not to work towards a cooperative co-parenting relationship or a parallel parenting arrangement - and that this decision would impact what success would look like for each family. The remainder of the participants indicated that successful resolution of conflict was achieved when parents could follow the FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 125 parenting plan, and reach consensus without a decision being imposed on them. Most participants did not mention their aims, or whether or not they had given thought to the most appropriate parenting arrangement to work towards with families. Demby (2009) noted that separation and divorce can be one of the most stressful and vulnerable times in an adult’s life, and conflict following this event can lead to rage and aggression towards the other parent in an attempt to avoid feelings of sadness and loss. Saini (2012) wrote about high-conflict divorce being a maladaptive adult attachment response. He calls for “early identification of high-conflict tactics as attachment behaviours” and with that lens, “more emotionally focused collaboration between mental health professionals and lawyers to help recognize and respond to unresolved emotional issues” (p. 173). The study of high conflict parents conducted by Mandarino et al. (2016) found that parents reported themselves as low in narcissism and high in empathy, despite anecdotal literature and PC’s reports (Hayes et al., 2012) that their clients often present with personality disordered symptoms and are high in narcissism and low in empathy. According to Mandarino et al. (2016) “the reported angry and difficult nature of conflicted co-parents may lead practitioners to view and categorize their clients as narcissistic, when they may be as likely to suffer from resurfacing trauma or family-of-origin issues” (p. 571). This literature highlights the different accounts of various participants in the PC process, and points to the importance of the assessment and case planning function of the PC on a case by case basis. The findings by Mandarino et al. (2016) do not correspond with much of the anecdotal literature regarding various personality vulnerabilities of clients that enter the PC process. The differentiation between personality traits that are considered stable over time, and the presentation of symptoms due to trauma or attachment injury, is important. The general attitude FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 126 of participants in this study was that change is not possible or likely in parents presenting with cluster B personality disorders (borderline, narcissistic). While this may be somewhat true because PCs are not in a therapy role, the belief that nothing can be done and/or the assumption that people cannot change will inevitably influence the PCs approach. If the PC believed these presentations were symptoms of trauma or an adult attachment injury, his or her interventions and approach were reported to be different. In the former, PCs were resigned to the situation being as good as it was going to get and said they made more determinations in these cases. In the latter situation, PCs took a proactive approach in trying different strategies to help the parents, such as coaching through consensus building, and suggested various resources to further assist. Birnbaum and Fidler (2005) state that if parents cannot cooperate two to three years post divorce/separation, the children would be best served by a model such as parallel parenting that allows the parents to disengage from the conflict. Fieldstone et al. (2011) asked PCs about their aims in cases, and found that PCs had three aims: cooperative co-parenting, functional parallel parenting, or a fully disengaged parenting arrangement. This question was not explicitly asked of participants in my study, and no pattern emerged with regards to PC aims in their cases. It is well established that PCs work with high conflict parents who already have a parenting plan or court order, and thus the parents have likely been in conflict for a significant amount of time prior to engaging the PC. The guidelines for PCs, however, state that a PC should engage parents in a consensus building phase and attempt to mediate issues before moving to arbitration. This engagement, if not approached systematically by the PC, increases costs and gives rise to additional hindering elements such as financial barriers and increased parental conflict (Sullivan, 2014). Engaging the parents on topics about which they disagree can FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 127 solidify their positional stances, a factor that PCs reported to be hindering to the process. Having an overarching aim for each case could act as a guide for parenting coordinators in how they engage the parents and meet the objectives of parenting coordination. Practical Implications In short, various aspects of the role of parenting coordination could be enhanced. Based on the literature, the professional climate in the jurisdiction of British Columbia, and the findings from this study, there are initiatives that could help PCs increase ethical competence and meet aspirational guidelines. These include a mentoring program for new PCs and a structured platform for ongoing peer support. Standards of practice that include a framework of assessment and case planning could increase consistency in the way parenting coordination is practiced. Increased ethical guidance and standards would help practitioners to integrate ethical components into their practice. Sound ethical practice would increase the quality of the service overall. The practical implications of these findings create an opportunity for growth in several areas. I intend to distribute these findings to various stakeholders. To the PCs, the suggestions for a mentoring program and consistent ongoing peer support could increase learning and growth in practitioners. This document will be made available to the BCPCRS. To policy makers who write and issue guidelines, the language and principles surrounding ethical practice should be enhanced to improve the ethics of this complex service for vulnerable families. This document will be distributed to the AFCC, who have indicated (by way of a mail-out to members in January 2018) that an update of the PC Guidelines is underway. Language in the guidelines such as “may, should, and must” could be adapted to ensure the highest ethical standards are mandatory rather than aspirational. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 128 For those in the mental health field, these findings serve to educate about both the service of parenting coordination for clients and also the high conflict dynamics that often exist following separation and divorce. These findings indicate that working with high conflict families is a clinical challenge. Education in this area is important for the competency of MHPs who may be unaware of their incompetency due to a lack of knowledge. Counselling Psychology It is well established in the literature that separation and divorce are major life events that impact family systems and leave people in a vulnerable state (Demby, 2009; Grych, 2005). It is common for counsellors to work with both adults and children throughout transition when a nuclear family dissolves. Some of these transitions include high conflict dynamics that pose increased risk factors that threaten the healthy development of children (Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; Grych & Fincham, 1999; Johnston, 1999). As mental health professionals (MHPs), it is essential to understand the assessment and services available for these clients. As one participant pointed out, “there are many individual counsellors who are good counsellors and wonderful people, but they do not have the tools in their toolbox to work with this [dynamic].” Understanding high conflict dynamics and the professional roles in place to manage various aspects of family systems is a necessary and worthwhile endeavour for MHPs. If professionals are not equipped or trained to work with presenting problems of this nature, referral to an appropriately qualified MHP is indicated. Family law is, by its very nature, a combination of psychological constructs (family) and law. When combining family law with psychology to address the various impacts on family systems, the relationship is intertwined. Parenting coordination is at the intersection of psychology and family law, and these subjects are interwoven into the framework of the role. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 129 Beyond the professional obligation of MHPs to be aware of the risk factors involved with clients who are facing high conflict following family breakups, counsellors can also become PCs. If additional training and specific requirements are met (Appendix I), registered clinical counsellors (RCCs) in British Columbia can apply to be on the BC roster of parenting coordinators. Two participants in this study are designated RCCs. The practice of parenting coordination is relevant to those with training in counselling psychology as a career option. Strengths and Limitations The number of participants in this study was relatively small; however, it is the number of factors extracted from their experiences that contribute to the data units in the ECIT. Eight participants from the roster contributed N = 197 factors. According to the BCPCRS website, the roster society currently consists of 39 members. The heterogeneous sample included law professionals (n = 4) and mental health professionals (n = 4); this allowed for the experiences of both professional backgrounds to be represented in the findings and was a strength of this study. One common critique of qualitative research is that the results are often not generalizable. Due to the PC culture varying across jurisdictions, generalizability was not a goal, nor is it a weakness of this study that the results do not apply to other areas. The findings in this study are helpful to the extent that PCs in British Columbia can relate to them. A limitation to this research is that there is no way to measure the accuracy of PC accounts. What a PC recalls as being helpful may not have been helpful for others in that process. Speaking with only one of the parties in the PC process created this inherent limitation. The nature of asking participants to recall incidents in the past relies on their ability to accurately recall their experiences in detail. The strength of these findings relies on the accurate and detailed account of participants, and human memories tend to fade or sometimes be FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 130 distorted. The advantage to recalling past events, particularly for those practicing in a complex role, is that reflection is a common exercise for professionals. It is possible this reflection allowed PCs to recall past incidents with greater understanding and clarity, making this method of data collection a strength. Parenting coordination is a complex role being practiced by professionals who have had different experiences and come from different professional backgrounds. The families they serve have their own complex dynamics and have unique presentations. The qualitative approach captured the context in which PCs work, and included their experiences without any attempt to control or isolate variables. Due to the multitude of variables that are outside of the PC’s control, this approach captured the practical account of PC experiences within their context and is considered a strength. Future Research This study interviewed parenting coordinators and participants were asked what helped and hindered the process, but this study did not include the parents. Including the reports of parents in the cases discussed by these PCs would allow researchers to assess if parents and PCs have similar or different ideas about conflict resolution, the purpose of the PC, among other helpful components that could be considered and compared. One thing to note was that the majority of the participants did not share their model or approach for PC cases. If I had the opportunity to repeat the study, I would have asked participants what their goal was when they got a new PC file. Asking this, and later asking about their definition of successful resolution of conflict, would allow the researcher to compare the goals set by PCs and their definition of success. This would bring out any correlation present between their goals at the outset and how PCs measure success in their cases. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 131 Research that measures the efficacy of parenting coordination measured against a control group is indicated. Having research that investigates the impact of parenting coordination on the children’s best interests would be beneficial for all involved. Most importantly, research is needed so that claims can be made about whether or not parenting coordination helps children’s development. Conclusion This study sought to explore the factors that impact the successful resolution of conflict in children’s best interests. Through a questionnaire and interviews, data was collected from eight parenting coordinators. PCs were asked what factors helped and hindered conflict resolution, as well as what other supports would be helpful. In the interview, participants were also asked how they define successful resolution of conflict in the children’s best interests. PCs showed excitement and engagement in this research, and their contributions generated a wealth of data. The hybrid role of parenting coordination is unique, and necessary to help families and children that are impacted by high conflict dynamics. PCs are experienced professionals, and they bring a wealth of skill and information to helping families. The role is well established in British Columbia and the Roster Society has shown commitment to excellence in the work that has been done to establish parenting coordination. The BCPCRS (2013) guidelines are in line with the AFCC (2005) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The findings of this research were corroborated by existing literature and empirical PC research. Factors contributing to the successful (and unsuccessful) resolution of conflict were similar to those found in various surveys (Belcher-Timme et al., 2013; Hayes et al., 2012; Fieldstone et al., 2011; Fieldstone et al., 2012). Beyond the factors, through an inductive process FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 132 of analysis, these results followed a pattern similar to a Bronfenbrenner’s model that was used by Hayes et al. (2012) in the creation of their survey. This corroboration with other research validates the findings of this study. Participants in this study recognized that this role is relatively new and that there is room for continued growth. Areas for growth were identified by participants’ wish list items, and also because they did not emerge with any consistency throughout the results. These areas include ethics and practice standards, clarity about PC expectations, and a framework for assessment and case planning. More stringent ethical and practice standards would help PCs keep the vulnerable nature of their clientele, particularly the children, at the forefront when managing and working with family dynamics. To nurture further growth in the field, having organized platforms for support and consultation are necessary. These structures include organized opportunities for peer consultation, a model for new PCs that incorporates mentorship, advanced trainings, and workshop trainings that assist in the growth of practitioners, and ultimately parenting coordination as a whole. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 133 REFERENCES Amato, P. R. (1987). Family processes in one-parent, stepparent and intact families: The child’s point of view. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 327–337. doi:10.2307/352303 Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 355-370. American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for the practice of parenting coordination. American Psychologist, 67, 63–71. doi:10.1037/a0024646 Andersson, B., & Nilsson, S. (1964). Studies in the reliability and validity of the Critical Incident Technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 398-403. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Parenting Coordination Task Force. (2003). Parenting coordination: Implementation issues. Family Court Review, 41, 533–564. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Parenting Coordination Task Force. (2006). Guidelines for parenting coordination. Family Court Review, 44, 164–181. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2006.00074.x Barsky, A. (2011). In practice: Parenting coordination: The risks of a hybrid conflict resolution process. Negotiation Journal, 27, 7–27. Beck, C. J., Putterman, M. D., Sbarra, D. A., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Parenting coordinator roles, program goals and services provided: Insights from the Pima County, Arizona program. Journal of Child Custody, 5, 122–139. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.98 Belcher-Timme, R. O., Shorey, H. S., Belcher-Timme, Z., & Gibbings, E. N. (2013). Exploring best practices in parenting coordination: A national survey of current practices and practitioners. Family Court Review, 51(4), 651-655. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 134 Beuhler, C., Anthony, C., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997). Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 233-247. Birnbaum, R., & Fidler, B. (2005). Commentary on Epstein and Madsen’s “Joint custody with a vengeance: The emergence of parallel parenting orders.” Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 24, 337–349. Birnbaum, R., & Bala, N. (2010). Toward the differentiation of high-conflict families: An analysis of social science research and Canadian case law. Family Court Review, 48, 403–416. Block, J., Block, J., & Gjerde, P. (1998). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57, 827–840. Boyarin, Y. (2012). Court-connected ADR: A time of crisis, a time of change. Family Court Review, 50(3), 377-404. Brewster, K., Beck, C., Anderson, E., & Benjamin, G. (2011). Evaluating parenting coordination programs: Encouraging results from a pilot testing a research methodology. Journal of Child Custody, 8, 247-267. doi: 10.1080/15379418.2011.620926 British Columbia Parenting Coordinators Roster Society. (2013). Guidelines for parenting coordination. Retrieved from BC Parenting Coordinator Roster Society website: http://www.bcparentingcoordinators.com/parenting-coordination/ Buchanan, C. M., & Waizenhofer, R. N. (2001). The impact of interparental conflict on adolescent children: Considerations of family systems and family structure. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M. Clements (Eds.), Couples in Conflict (pp. 149-160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 135 Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5, 475-497. Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Maglio, A. T., & Amundson, N. E. (2009). Using the enhanced critical incident technique in counselling psychology research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 43(4), 265-282. Coates, C. A. (2015). The parenting coordinator as peacemaker and peacebuilder. Family Court Review, 53(3), 398-406. Coates, C. A., Deutsch, R. M., Hughes, S., Sullivan, M., & Sydlik, B. (2004). Parenting coordination for high-conflict families. Family Court Review, 42(2), 246-262. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cummings, E., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conflict. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cummings, E., Davies, P., & Campbell, S. (2000). Developmental psychopathology and family process: Theory, research, and clinical implications. New York, NY: Guilford. Cyr, F., Macé, C., & Quigley, C. (2017). Summary of Recommendations and Reflections of the Montreal Parenting Coordination Pilot Project (2012-2014) (Report to the Quebec Ministry Justice). Montréal, Quebec. Davies, P. T., Hentges, R. F., Coe, J. L., Martin, M. J., Sturge-Apple, M. L., & Cummings, E. M. (2016). The multiple faces of conflict: Implications for cascades of children’s insecurity and externalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(5), 664-678. Demby, S. (2009). Interparent hatred and its impact on parenting: Assessment in forensic custody evaluations. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 29, 477–490. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 136 Demby, S. (2016). Parenting coordination: Applying clinical thinking to the management and resolution of post-divorce conflict. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 458-468. Deutsch, R. M., Coates, C. A., & Fieldstone, L. (2008). Parenting coordination: An emerging role to assist high conflict families. In L. Fieldstone & C. Coates (Eds.), Innovations in Interventions with High Conflict Families (pp. 187–221). Madison, WI: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Deutsch, R. M. (2014). Parenting coordination: Basic approaches and strategies. In S. Higuchi & S. Lally (Eds.), Parenting coordination in postseparation disputes: A comprehensive guide for practitioners (pp. 63-74). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Eddy, B. (2014). Quick responses to high-conflict people, their personal attacks, hostile email and social media meltdowns (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Unhooked Books. Emery, R. E. (1999). Changing the rules for determining child custody in divorce cases. Clinical Psychology, Science and Practice, 6, 323-327. Fabricius, W., & Luecken, L. (2007). Post-divorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and longterm physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 195–205. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.195 Family Law Act, SBC 2011. Retrieved from www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/lc/statreg/11025_01 Family Law Act Regulations, SBC 2012. Retrieved from http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/roc/roc/331105891#section6 FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 137 Fauber, R., Forehand, R., McCombs Thomas, A., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disruptive parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123. Fidler, B. J., & Epstein, P. (2008). Parenting coordination in Canada: An overview of legal and practice issues. Journal of Child Custody, 5(1), 53-57. doi: 10.1080/15379410802070393 Fieldstone, L., Carter, D. K., King, T., & McHale, J. P. (2011). Training, skills and practices of parenting coordinators: Florida statewide study. Family Court Review, 49(4), 801-817. Fieldstone, L., Lee, M., Baker, J., & McHale, J. P. (2012). Perspectives on parenting coordination: Views of parenting coordinators, attorneys, and judiciary members. Family Court Review, 50(3), 441-454. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358. Fotheringham, S., Dunbar, J., & Hensley, D. (2013). Speaking for themselves: Hope for children caught in high conflict custody and access disputes involving violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 311-324. Greif, J. (1979). Fathers, children, and joint custody. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 49, 311–319. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1979.tb02612. Grych, J. (2005). Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child maladjustment: Implications for the development of prevention programs. Family Court Review, 43(1), 97-108. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. (1999). The adjustment of children from divorced families: Implications of empirical research for clinical intervention. In R. Galatzer & L. Kraus (Eds.). The scientific basis of child custody decisions (pp. 96-119). New York, NY: Wiley. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 138 Hayes, S. W. (2010). “More of a street cop than a detective”: An analysis of the roles and functions of parenting coordinators in North Carolina. Family Court Review, 48, 698– 709. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01343.x Hayes, S. W., Grady, M., & Brantley, H. (2012). E-mails, statutes, and personality disorders: A contextual examination of the processes, interventions, and perspectives of parenting coordinators. Family Court Review, 50, 429–440. Henry, W. J., Fieldstone, L., & Bohac, K. (2009). Parenting coordination and court relitigation: A case study. Family Court Review, 47, 682–697. doi:10.1111/ j.1744-1617.2009.01281.x Hensley, D., & Dunbar, J. (2011). Speaking for themselves: A pilot program balancing children’s rights and best interests in high conflict families. In S. Anand (Ed.), Children and the law: Essays in honour of professor Nicholas Bala (pp. 224-237). Toronto, ON: Irwin Law. Hetherington, E., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child development (pp. 233–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Higuchi, S. A., & Lally, S. J. (Eds.), (2014). Parenting Coordination in Post-Separation Disputes: A Comprehensive Guide for Practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Higuchi, S. A, Lally, S. J., & Joyner-Hall, J. (2014). Setting up a parenting coordination project in the courts: The District of Columbia program. In S. A. Higuchi & S. J. Lally (Eds.), Parenting Coordination in Post-separation Disputes: A Comprehensive Guide for Practitioners (pp. 123-140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Johnston, J. (1994). High-conflict divorce. The Future of Children, 4(1), 165-182. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 139 Johnston, J., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflict and violent divorce (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., McDonald, R., & Mueller, V. (2014). Child involvement in interparental conflict and child adjustment problems: A longitudinal study of violent families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(5), 693-704. doi: 10.1007/s10802013-9821-1 Katz, S. (1994). Historical perspective and current trends in the legal process of divorce. The Future of Children, 4, 44–62. doi:10.2307/1602477 Kelly, J. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 963973. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200008000-00007 Kelly, J. B. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with child and adolescent adjustment following separation and divorce: Social science applications. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drozd (Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 49-84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kelly, J. B. (2014a). Including children in the parenting coordination process: A specialized role. In S. Higuchi & S. Lally (Eds.), Parenting coordination in postseparation disputes: A comprehensive guide for practitioners (pp.143-170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kelly, J. B. (2014b). Origins and development of parenting coordination. In S. Higuchi & S. Lally (Eds.), Parenting coordination in postseparation disputes: A comprehensive guide for practitioners (pp.13-35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 140 King, V., & Heard, H. (1999). Nonresident fathers’ visitation, parental conflict, and mother’s satisfaction: What’s best for child well-being? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 385–396. doi:10.2307/35375 Kirkland, K. (2008). Parenting coordination (PC) laws, rules, and regulations: A jurisdictional comparison. Journal of Child Custody, 5, 25–52. Kirkland, K., & Sullivan, M. (2008). Parenting coordination (PC) practice: A survey of experienced professionals. Family Court Review, 46, 622–636. doi:10.1111/j.17441617.2008.00228. Kitzmann, K. M., & Emery, R. E. (1994). Child and family coping one year after mediated and litigated child custody disputes. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(2), 150-159. Kruk, E. (2013). Social justice, spirituality, and responsibility to needs: The “best interests of the child” in the divorce transition. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 15(2), 94-106. doi: 10.1080/19349637.2013.776450 M. H. v. C. S. (2013). Case 2232 (BCSC). Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc2232/2013bcsc2232.html?resultInd ex=2 Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mandarino, K., Kline-Pruett, M., & Fieldstone, L. (2016). Co-parenting in a highly conflicted separation/divorce: Learning about parents and their experiences of parenting coordination, legal, and mental health intervention. Family Court Review, 54(4), 564– 577. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 141 Martinson, D. (2013). The Family Law Act and family violence: Independent and impartial parenting assessments. Retrieved from Continuing Legal Society of British Columbia website: http://www.cle.bc.ca/practicepoints/FAM/13-TheFLAandFamilyViolenceIndependentandImpartialParentingAssessments.pdf Mason, M. (1994). From father’s property to children’s rights. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-300. McCoy, K., George, M., Cummings, M., & Davies, P. (2013). Constructive and destructive marital conflict, parenting, and children’s school and social adjustment. Social Development, 22(4), 641-662. doi: 10.1111/sode.12015 McGrath, J., & Johnson, B. (2003). Methodology makes meaning: How both qualitative and quantitative paradigms shape evidence and its interpretation (pp. 31-48). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mertens, D. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Thousand Islands, CA: Sage. Morewitz, S. (2016). Impact of conflicted child custody on school, behavioral, and social outcomes: An ecological approach. In C. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of Child Custody (pp. 243-254). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-31913942-5 Neff, R., & Cooper, K. (2004). Progress in parent education: Parental conflict resolution. Family Court Review, 42, 99–114. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 142 Neville, C. (2013). Parenting Coordination: Making it work for your clients under the new family law act. Retrieved from British Columbia Parenting Coordination Roster Society website: http://www.bcparentingcoordinators.com/assets/articles/making_it_work_for_your_client s_craig_neville.pdf Owen, J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2012). Reducing interparental conflict among parents in contentious child custody disputes: An initial investigation of the working together program. Journal of Marriage and Family, 38(3), 542-544. doi: 10.1111/j.17520606.2010.00215.x Pruett, K. D. (2000). Fatherneed: Why father care is as essential as mother care for your child. New York, NY: Free Press. Pruett, M., Williams, T., Insabella, G., & Little, T. (2003). Family and legal indicators of child adjustment to divorce among families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(2), 169–180. Rowen, J., & Emery, R. (2014). Examining parental denigration behaviors of co-parents as reported by young adults and their association with parent-child closeness. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(3), 165-177. Saini, M. (2012). Reconceptualizing high-conflict divorce as a maladaptive adult attachment response. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93, 173– 180. Sbarra, D., & Emery, R. (2008). Deeper into divorce: Using actor-partner analyses to explore systemic differences in co-parenting conflict following custody dispute resolution. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 144-152. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.144 FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 143 Scott v. Kallur, (2016). Case 2361 (BCSC). Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc2361/2016bcsc2361/2016bcsc2361. pdf Shiono, P., & Quinn, L. (1994). Epidemiology of divorce. The Future of Children, 4, 15–28. doi:10.2307/1602475 Sullivan, M. (2008). Co-parenting and the parenting coordination process. Journal of Child Custody, 5, 4–24. doi:10.1080/1537941080207035 Sullivan, M. J. (2014). Creation, development, and management of a parenting coordination practice. In S. Higuchi & S. Lally (Eds.), Parenting Coordination in Postseparation Disputes: A Comprehensive Guide for Practitioners (pp. 77-92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wolchik, S. A., Schenk, C. E., & Sandler, I. N. (2009). Promoting resilience in youth from divorced families: Lessons learned from experimental trials of the New Beginnings program. Journal of Personality, 77(6),1833-1868. Wong, L. C. J. (2000). What helps and what hinders in cross-cultural clinical supervision: A critical incident study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/831/items/1.0053861 Woolsey, L. (1986). The critical incident technique: An innovative method of research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 20, 242-254. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 144 Appendix A PARENTING COORDINATION: HELPING AND HINDERING FACTORS IMPACTING THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST Sample PC Background Information 1. Gender: ____________ 2. Age (please circle): 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60+ 3. Generational Status: Place of birth Mother’s place of birth Father’s place of birth 5. What is your professional background? 6. Please list any other personal and/or professional background that is relevant to your practice as a PC: 7. How long have you been practicing in your primary profession? 8. How long have you been a Parenting Coordinator (PC)? 9. Number of closed PC files you have worked on: FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 145 10. Number of PC files you currently have open: 11. Please list and describe any training and/or experience that you believe to be relevant to your role as a PC: FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 146 Appendix B SAMPLE INFORMED CONSENT FORM Trinity Western University Parenting Coordination: Helping and Hindering Factors for Resolving Conflict in the Best Interest of the Child The purpose of this research project is to discover what factors help and hinder parenting coordinators in the successful resolution of family conflict, and how these strategies are in the best interests of the child. You have been in contact with the researcher to clarify fit with this project. The first interview is audio recorded and will be professionally transcribed. The interview is expected to last approximately 1 hour. The focus of this interview is on the helping and hindering factors for the successful resolution of family conflict. You will be asked questions about what additional supports, programs or people would be useful in order to support your endeavour to resolve family conflict in the child’s best interest. You will also be asked to give examples of your work that show how to serve the best interest of the child. A second interview will be conducted by telephone and will not be audio recorded. The purpose of this interview is for clarity, and to collect additional details from the content in the first interview if necessary. The second interview is expected to last less than 30 minutes. Finally, an email will be sent to you with a summary of results from your interviews. You will be invited to discuss with the researcher any lack of clarity or inaccuracies present in the summary provided. Hard data (transcripts, questionnaires) will be kept in a physically secure cabinet at Trinity Western University that only the research team has access to. Each participant will be identified by a number, not by name. Digital data will be encrypted and stored on a password protected device. All identifying information will be kept strictly confidential, and will not appear in any part of any draft of this research project. Promptly following the completion of this study, all identifying information including recordings will be destroyed completely. Anonymized versions of interview transcripts will be kept indefinitely to support future research. There are three exceptions to the strict confidentiality limits for this research study: 1. Threat of harm to self or others 2. Information of child abuse 3. If this information is requested by court order Potential Benefits of Participation: There are a number of potential benefits to your participating in this research study: (a) reflect on, and share your expertise in a safe and confidential environment (b) offer an expert opinion about how to better the profession of parenting coordination (c) share with others about how FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 147 your work is in the child’s best interest (d) benefit children and families by sharing your expertise with other professionals. The potential risks of participating in this research study are limited. During the interview, it is possible that reflecting on past experiences may cause distress to some participants. You are under no obligation to answer questions that you feel are invasive, or to provide any details that would identify yourself or your clients. You may refuse to participate or withdraw your consent to participate in this research study at any time without jeopardy. If you communicate your desire to withdraw from this study prior to data analysis, no part of your data will be included in the results of this study. If you have any questions or desire further information with respect to this study, you may contact the Principal Investigator: Marianne Cottingham, Trinity Western University, Counselling Psychology Student. Phone: (778) 789-5561 or email: parentingcoordinationthesis@gmail.com Supervisor: Marvin McDonald, Trinity Western University, Director, Counselling Psychology Program Phone: (604) 513-2034 ext. 3223 or email: mcdonald@twu.ca If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research participant, you may contact: Ms. Sue Funk in the Office of Research, Trinity Western University at 604-513-2142 or sue.funk@twu.ca. Your signature indicates the following: You have read and understood the content of this informed consent form including the description of the research study, and the potential risks and benefits. You have had your questions about the study answered to your satisfaction and have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. You consent to participate in this study, and that your responses may be kept in anonymous form and kept for further use after the completion of this study. Participant printed name: _______________________________ Participant Signature: Date: Please initial here if you would like an electronic copy of the final report emailed to you once it is complete: ________ FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 148 Appendix C SAMPLE INTERVIEW GUIDE Participant #: Date: Interview Start time: Instructions to Interviewer: 1. Review Brief Background Information survey with participant. If Participant did not print and complete this in advance of the interview, allow them time to complete it and then review the survey with them. 2. During dialogue, adapt to language being used by participant. 3. Informed consent: If participant has not printed and signed informed consent form prior to the interview, go over the form with them, collect the signature, and give them a paper copy to keep. If the participant has printed and signed the Informed Consent form in advance, then ask if they have any questions and collect the signed form before moving onto item 4. 4. Introduce the interview. 5. Begin interview using interview questions. [The following wording needs to be adapted for each participant. Rephrasing as needed is important.] 6. Closing. Interview Introduction: Thank you for participating in this study. This project is based on your insights and experiences of what makes parenting coordination successful. We are also interested in examples of challenging or unsuccessful attempts at conflict resolution. I want to be sure we also touch on your recommendations for future practice in the profession to make it more likely that PCs can be consistently successful in meeting the best interest of the child. Based on your expertise, it will be helpful to learn what “successful resolution” of conflict means to you, and how your work has supported the child’s best interest. The information elicited from interviews is expected to help other professionals such as PCs, family law professionals, and mental health professionals in their dealings with family conflict. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 149 Interview Questions: 1. We would like to review examples or situations when you and a family were able to successfully resolve conflict in a way that met the child’s best interest. Can you think of an example of that in your work? Probes: Clarify: What was the specific incident/factor(s) that helped? Importance: I wonder if you can tell me what it was about ______ (factor/incident) that you found so helpful? What was the outcome of the incident? What was it about this outcome that served the child’s best interest? Wish list: In that example, can you think of any further supports or resources that may have been helpful? 1B. Are there challenges or factors within this example that made it more difficult to resolve conflict? Clarify: What do you mean by ____________? Importance: How did ____________ make resolution difficult? 2. I wonder if you can think of examples in your work when conflict was not resolved in the child’s best interest. Probes: Clarify: What do you mean by ________________? Importance: How did _____________ make resolution more difficult? What was the outcome in this situation? In what way was the child’s interest not well served as a result of this outcome? Wish list: What may have helped in this example? 2B. What kinds of things have happened that made it harder for you to resolve conflict successfully? Probes: Clarify: What do you mean by ________________? Importance: How did _____________ make resolution more difficult? FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 150 3. We have talked about many examples that highlight the factors that have helped you resolve family conflict and some of the challenging factors in reaching resolution (name helpful and hindering factors). I wonder if you can tell me about any people, programs or supports that you wish were available to you for resolving conflict going forward? Probes: Clarify: What do you mean by ____________ ? Importance: How would _______ be helpful? Example: Can you think of an example of when this might be helpful? Closing: This has been a very interesting time for me. We have talked about many worthwhile examples in your work. Is there anything else that you think would be helpful for me to know about your experiences as a PC? Based on your experiences, what would be your top recommendations for other professionals who work with family conflict? Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this research and for sharing your expertise with me. If you would like to touch base with additional comments or questions, you can reach me through the contact information on the consent form. Interview End Time: Name of Interviewer: Length of Interview: FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 151 Appendix D SAMPLE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSCRIPTIONISTS I, ______________________ transcriptionist, agree to maintain full confidentiality in regards to any and all audio recordings and documentations received from Marianne Cottingham related to her research study, including the following: 1. To hold in the strictest confidence the identification of any individual that may be identified revealed during the transcription of audio recorded interviews, or in any associated documents. 2. To store all recordings and study-related materials in a safe and secure location with at least two layers of protection while they are in my possession. 3. To return all recordings and study-related materials to Marianne Cottingham in a complete and timely manner. 4. To delete all copies of study-related documents and files from all computer hard drives and all back-up devices they have been stored on, and any physical files. I am aware that any breach of confidentiality and/or other unethical behaviour on my part may result in ethical consequences and/or legal charges. Transcriber’s name (printed): Transcriber’s signature: Date: FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 152 Appendix E SAMPLE INITIAL CONTACT EMAIL Dear Parenting Coordinators: I am conducting a research project as part of my Master’s degree in Counselling Psychology. I am investigating the factors that help and hinder parenting coordinators in successfully resolving family conflict in the children’s best interest. Data will be collected through individual interviews with Parenting Coordinators at a location and time of their choice in January or February 2017. If you are interested in participating in this study, please contact the principal investigator: Marianne Cottingham FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 153 Appendix F SAMPLE DEBRIEFING EMAIL Dear Participant (insert name here): The PC research project is now complete, and the final thesis document has been deposited. [ For those who requested a copy, an electronic copy of the final document is attached to this email.] Your time and contribution to this thesis project are greatly appreciated. Without your expertise and contributions, this project would not have been possible. For that, I thank you in collaborating with me to create the final product. If you wish to get in contact with me in the future, I can be reached at: Marianne Cottingham Principal Investigator FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 154 Appendix G SITUATING THE RESEARCHER For as long as I can remember, I have had a strong theme of justice in my life. I am the youngest of three children and the only girl. I learned the word “fair” at a very young age and it was perhaps my most used word throughout childhood. This concept of fairness stretched beyond fairness to myself, and encompassed fairness to children as a group. I spent much of my elementary school years in the hallway or the principal’s office explaining my behaviour in the name of fairness. Rather than a passing phase, this theme and commitment has become stronger over time. This theme of justice has played out in my life in several ways, and is what brought me to pursue an education and career in the mental health field. It is also this theme that influenced my decision to conduct a research study on the subject of parenting coordination. For years before this project and my pursuit of an education and career as a mental health professional, and throughout the duration of this project, my life partner has been a consumer of services available to parents who remain in conflict following separation. These services include formal mediation, judicial case conferences, litigation in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Provincial Court of British Columbia, various mental health services for parents and children, work with a family justice counsellor, a completed section 211 assessment by a psychologist (also known as a custody and access report), and parenting coordination. Having lived with one parent and the children, I witness first hand the impacts of high conflict separation and the inner workings of the systems in place to manage family conflict. I also had close friends and extended family members experiencing various impacts of high conflict separation at different stages. I was aware of their access of and experiences with various services, and I observed both the parents and children in these situations. In my FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 155 professional roles as a counsellor and group facilitator, I worked with several parents who were in the midst of high conflict separation. This exposure from a personal and professional standpoint gave me a greater understanding of conflict dynamics, and how the systems work for high conflict parents. My first attraction to parenting coordination came when I encountered the concept of “the best interests of the child”. I was hopeful when I discovered that a professional role exists to serve the children that are impacted in high conflict separation and divorce. My first exposure to parenting coordination was through the lens of parents using the service. I heard what parents felt were the strengths and weaknesses in their experience of parenting coordination, and I was motivated to learn more about the work parenting coordinators do. My second exposure to parenting coordination was through the lens of being a mental health professional in training. I researched everything I could about parenting coordination. I became familiar with the various models of parenting coordination that differ based on jurisdiction, noting that there were differences despite guidelines released by the AFCC (2005) and APA (2012) that create basis for the PC role. As well, I spoke to one of the members from the group that initiated parenting coordination in British Columbia in an attempt to better understand the history. To gain a greater understanding of the PC culture, I joined the AFCC and attended both the international conference in Seattle (2016) and the international conference in Boston (2017), as well as a joint conference with the AAML in San Diego (2017). At these conferences, I had the opportunity to meet, network, and learn from many PCs who have been instrumental in the development and implementation of parenting coordination in North America. These experiences FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 156 further fuelled my desire to complete this research and better understand how PCs believe they are working in the best interests of children. Throughout this project, I have brought my personal experiences of parenting coordination and their impact into my awareness and reflected on how they fit with my current beliefs. I have kept an audio journal of my thoughts, reactions, experiences, epiphanies, and overall learnings. I also utilized some time during meetings with my supervisors to discuss my personal exposure to parenting coordination, the impact it had on my family, and the frustrations and successes that emerged in the process. These outlets of expression allowed me an opportunity to follow my own process while this research project advanced through the various stages. While this was a qualitative research project, I chose a paradigm and research method that limited my voice in the final product. It was my goal throughout to bring my passion and interest to this project, but also to differentiate my own personal process from the research. My intention was to capture the experiences of the research participants and create a completed document that can better parenting coordination in BC, and have a positive impact on children. I chose the ECIT as the research method because I felt that it provided me with a more objective position than other qualitative methods that I considered. My consultation with the stakeholders impacted the development of my research question and the interview guide. The rigour checks used in ECIT, namely participant cross-checking, expert consultation, interview fidelity, using an independent judge and incident extractor were all ways in which my potential bias was contained. As well, using the quotations of participants in my findings was another way to ensure the voice of the participants who are experts in their field were represented. My decisions FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 157 throughout this project were intentional and made to put various safeguards into protecting this research from inappropriate bias on my part. What drew me to this particular topic was that my personal experience of parenting coordination has been less than satisfactory. However, I do not think it is reasonable or fair to judge an intervention based on limited experiences and exposure; this would not be an appropriate viewpoint to use when designing and conducting a research study, hence my decision to limit my voice. It was important to me to have a well-rounded approach that was diverse and thus not limited to personal negative exposure to a small number of parenting coordinators. While my own experiences of parenting coordination and the impacts I have witnessed have not been positive overall, I do believe that the role has the potential to assist families and particularly children. It is with this belief that I went forward in conducting this study with the hopes of shedding light on an intervention that can and will help children. My consultation with various stakeholders and my immersion in the PC culture was an important and intentional element of this project. While I was experiencing the impact of parenting coordination on my family, much of which was negative and costly, I was balancing that with my exposure to the professionalism, hope and determination that so many of the professionals bring to this role. My attendance at the AFCC conferences created the opportunity for connections; this allowed me to witness and connect with the many stakeholders who bring such passion to helping children and families. Through reflection, awareness raising exercises and learning, I worked hard at balancing my knowledge and experiences as a consumer of services, my personal relationships with those using the greater systems in high conflict separation, my mental health education, my professional role with clients, and the role of principal investigator in this research project. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 158 I spent many hours contemplating the potential pros and cons that my inherent roles and experiences would bring to this project. Through exposure to the greater PC community by way of the AFCC conferences and the connections formed at those events, I gained hope and inspiration. This helped to counteract some of the negative impacts of parenting coordination that I experienced as a consumer of the service (by way of my partner). By choosing a method with the intention of minimizing researcher bias, and going beyond the specifications in the area of expert consultation, I felt confident that I was accurately capturing the experiences of participants and the workings of parenting coordination in British Columbia. It is my view that my unique position as a consumer, student, educator (of parents), counsellor, and researcher added depth of understanding to this area of research that otherwise would not have been accessible. This understanding allowed me a nuanced view of parenting coordination which helped in my interviews and in my ability to talk to experts on a deeper level, and ultimately to produce a document that I hope will positively impact parenting coordination in the province. FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 159 Appendix H Contributed Factors by Participants Contributed Factors by Participants 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 #1 #2 #3 #4 Helping Hindering #5 #6 #7 Wish List This chart shows the contribution of factors for each category by participants. #8 FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 160 Appendix I Parenting Coordinator Requirements Family Law Act Family Law Act Regulation Parenting coordinators 6 (1) A person may act as a parenting coordinator if (a) he or she is a member in good standing of (i) the Law Society of British Columbia, (ii) the College of Psychologists of British Columbia, (iii) the British Columbia College of Social Workers, (iv) the BC Association of Clinical Counsellors, (v) Family Mediation Canada, (vi) the Mediate BC Family Roster, or (vii) the BC Parenting Coordinators Roster Society, (b) one of the following applies: (i) he or she is a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia and meets all of the training and practice requirements set for parenting coordinators by the Law Society of British Columbia; (ii) he or she is not a member of the Law Society of British Columbia and all of the following apply: (A) he or she meets the training requirements of, and is eligible for membership in, the Mediate BC Family Roster or Family Mediation Canada; (B) he or she has at least 10 years experience in family-related practice; (C) he or she has completed at least 40 hours of training in parenting coordination provided by a training provider that is recognized as providing high quality training in that field, which training must include training in relation to the role and responsibilities of a parenting coordinator, arbitration and decision making, communication skills development, the effects of separation and FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 161 divorce on parents and children, high conflict family dynamics and child development and developmental needs; (D) he or she has completed at least 21 hours of family law training provided by the Justice Institute of British Columbia, by the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia or by any other training provider that is recognized as providing high quality training in that field; (E) he or she has completed at least 14 hours of family violence training, including training on identifying, assessing and managing family violence and power dynamics in relation to dispute resolution process design, provided by the Justice Institute of British Columbia, by the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia or by any other training provider that is recognized as providing high quality training in that field; (F) each year he or she completes at least 10 hours of continuing professional development applicable to family dispute resolution practice, at least 7 hours of which must be in the form of a course provided by the Justice Institute of British Columbia, by the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia or by any other training provider that is recognized as providing high quality training in that field, and (c) he or she maintains professional liability insurance that provides coverage for his or her practice as a parenting coordinator. (2) The following practice standards apply to a parenting coordinator: (a) before assisting the parties to a family law dispute in his or her capacity as a parenting coordinator, he or she must enter into a written agreement to provide parenting coordination services with the parties to the family law dispute; (b) before assisting the parties to a family law dispute in his or her capacity as a parenting coordinator, he or she must provide written confirmation to the parties to the family law dispute that he or she meets the professional requirements set out in subsection (1). (3) The following are the matters in respect of which a parenting coordinator may make determinations: (a) parenting arrangements; (b) contact with a child. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a parenting coordinator (a) may make determinations in respect of (i) a child's daily routine, including a child's schedule in relation to parenting time or contact with the child, FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT 162 (ii) the education of a child, including in relation to the child's special needs, (iii) the participation of a child in extracurricular activities and special events, (iv) the temporary care of a child by a person other than (A) the child's guardian, or (B) a person who has contact with the child under an agreement or order, (v) the provision of routine medical, dental or other health care to a child, (vi) the discipline of a child, (vii) the transportation and exchange of a child for the purposes of exercising parenting time or contact with the child, (viii) parenting time or contact with a child during vacations and special occasions, and (ix) any other matters, other than matters referred to in paragraph (b), that are agreed on by the parties and the parenting coordinator, and (b) must not make determinations in respect of (i) a change to the guardianship of a child, (ii) a change to the allocation of parental responsibilities, (iii) giving parenting time or contact with a child to a person who does not have parenting time or contact with the child, (iv) a substantial change to the parenting time or contact with a child, or (v) the relocation of a child. (5) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 347/2012, s. 2 (b).]