3 - (SYM 69) Family Court Implements IPV Screening and Related Specialized Mediation: Qualitative Study of Staff Perceptions

Family courts often order divorcing/separating parents to mediation to settle child-related issues (e.g., custody). >50% of such cases report intimate partner violence (IPV) which has negative consequences for children. Mediation is an opportunity to build protections for families experiencing IPV. However, most family courts do not screen for IPV and thus likely do not consider it adequately. Also, IPV experts are concerned about survivor safety in traditional mediation (i.e., parents meet together, in person, with a mediator). In our academic-legal collaboration, Baltimore County, Maryland Court’s Office of Family Mediation implemented 2 new processes to improve mediation outcomes for separating families reporting IPV. They implemented a new IPV screening tool and offered parties with high levels of IPV specialized forms of mediation designed to be safer by keeping parents physically separated. Both practices have empirical support for their efficacy.

Courts, like other child-serving systems, face challenges when implementing new procedures. Implementation success and sustainment are key to promoting the public health impact of interventions and can be determined by the perspectives of the staff  using new practices. Thus, we examined the active implementation stage by hearing directly from involved court staff. We conducted 3 focus groups, each 3 months apart (~30 min each), during the initial implementation year (2022). 4 to 6 staff members participated in each group. We used a semi-structured interview (PRIUS, Miech et al., 2019) to ask staff about their experience. We scored (via consensus) valence of each participant’s experience. Extensive notes, collected using an innovative matrix template, will be analyzed using framework analysis (Krueger, 1994) to identify barriers and facilitators.

Initial analyses highlight both barriers (e.g., changes made to the IPV screen) and facilitators (e.g., involving judges more, providing screeners with mediation training to improve understanding of the importance of screening) that highlight opportunities to improve implementation at other courts. Diversity considerations will be discussed, as Baltimore County is 31% Black. Additional results will be presented.

IPV screening and modified forms of mediation for parents reporting IPV may help prevent additional abuse for families in the legal system. Key to helping courts implement new practices, our results provide insight into court staff perceptions of the active implementation stage and highlight determinants to target.