Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intimate Partner Violence Predicting Outcomes in Specialized Mediation and Traditional Litigation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Family Violence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization level ever in the relationship, as reported by parents at baseline, as a predictor of outcomes within each of three different dispute resolution processes: traditional litigation (n = 67 cases), shuttle mediation (n = 49 cases), and videoconferencing mediation (n = 50 cases).

Method

The sample included court cases of separating or divorcing parents reporting high levels of IPV victimization. Parent and case level immediate and one-year follow-up outcomes were examined.

Results

Within all three dispute resolution types, higher baseline IPV predicted higher levels of ongoing IPV and harassment at follow-up. Results within the traditional litigation group were mixed. Higher baseline IPV was related to parent reports of feeling less safe and more upset during the process, less positive perceptions of the process, less confidence that the other party would follow the resolution, and in the year following case resolution, greater likelihood of re-litigation. But higher mother reported baseline IPV was associated with greater likelihood of sole legal custody being granted to mothers, and higher father reported baseline IPV was associated with greater likelihood of joint legal custody and fewer parenting hours for mothers. Some results raise concerns about videoconferencing mediation (i.e., higher IPV was related to lower levels of party reported feelings of safety, longer time to resolution, and at follow-up, higher levels of concerning interparental relationships). Most results had small effect sizes.

Conclusions

Recommendations for family law professionals to better serve separating parents reporting high IPV are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Our data archiving information is currently listed in our author note.

Notes

  1. We interchangeably use the terms “divorce” or “parental separation” to refer to both the legal dissolution of a marriage and the process of parental separation and/or settlement of child related issues among unmarried parents.

  2. High levels of IPV and how they were identified is defined in the “Methods” section, below.

  3. Given the potential importance of coercive control in family law cases (see introduction), note that the coercive control subscale of the MASIC included 14 questions and the sample had an overall mean of 6.90 (SD = 3.43) on this subscale (range from 0 to 14).

  4. The correlation between the coercive control subscale and the ever variety score used as a predictor in the current paper was 0.90 (p < .0001), making it uninformative to include both scores as predictors.

  5. As fathers’ hours were simply the total number of possible hours in a four-week period minus the number of mothers’ hours, we analyzed only mothers’ hours.

  6. Given the relationship between parents, including gender in our statistical analyses’ accounts for the lack of statistical independence of mother and father data in a family. In addition, we controlled for gender as gender was related to some outcomes in the original RCT findings (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2021a, b),

  7. Considering both the added complexity of interpreting interaction effects in multi-level models and the multiple levels of nesting in our data (providing additional sources of variability), we did not include interaction terms in any of our models.

  8. Although some work has been done proposing methods to analyze relationships between individual level predictors and case level outcomes using multi-level models (Croon & van Veldhoven, 2007), the approach we used in the current study was selected in lieu of a multi-level modeling approach because we are unable to find any prior research where MicroMacro relationships are modeled for binary outcomes and include up to three levels of nesting (Bennink et al., 2013).

  9. We also changed the order of female and male responses as steps 3 and 2, respectively, but the results did not vary from those reported in this report.

  10. There were 21 outcome variables for both mediation conditions, and 20 for the traditional litigation condition, which did not include the outcome of whether or not agreement was reached.

References

  • Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., Ivanova, M. Y., & Rescorla, L. A. (2011). Manual for ASEBA brief Problem Monitor (BPM). University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adrian, M., McCauley, E., Berk, M. S., Asarnow, J. R., Korslund, K., Avina, C., Gallop, R., & Linehan, M. M. (2019). Predictors and moderators of recurring self-harm in adolescents participating in a comparative treatment trial of psychological interventions. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60, 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ahrons, C. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatrics, 51(3), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1981.tb01390.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, A. G., Beck, C. J., Adams, J. M., Rossi, F. S., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2021). Preparing mediators to mediate cases reporting high IPV in a randomized controlled trial: The importance of a mediation manual, training, and consultation. Family Court Review, 59, 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, R. H., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A. G., & D’Onofrio, B. (2011). Factors affecting the outcome of divorce and paternity mediations. Family Court Review, 49, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01350.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, C. J. A., Walsh, M. E., & Weston, R. (2009). Analysis of mediation agreements of families reporting specific types of intimate partner abuse. Family Court Review, 47, 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01264.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beeman, A. (2022). The need for more states to adopt specific legislation addressing abusive use of litigation in intimate partner violence. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 20, 825–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series, 57, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennink, M., Croon, M. A., & Vermunt, J. K. (2013). Micro–macro multilevel analysis for discrete data: A latent variable approach and an application on personal network data. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 431–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinig, M. F., Frederick, L. M., & Drozd, L. M. (2014). Perspectives on joint custody presumptions. Family Court Review, 52, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62(5), 1008–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01586.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015). The impact of intimate partner violence: A 2015 NISVS research in brief. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs/nisvs-impactbrief-508.pdf

  • Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communication in Statistics- Simulation and Computation, 39, 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610911003650383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2001). SPRINT: A brief global assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(5), 279–284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Croon, M. A., & van Veldhoven, M. J. (2007). Predicting group-level outcome variables from variables measured at the individual level: A latent variable multilevel model. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DiFonzo, H. (2014). From the rule of one to shared parenting: Custody presumptions in law and policy. Family Court Review, 52, 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duron, J. F., Johnson, L., Hoge, G. L., & Postmus, J. L. (2021). Observing coercive control beyond intimate partner violence: Examining the perceptions of professionals about common tactics used in victimization. Psychology of Violence, 11(2), 144. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, R. E. (1982). Marital discord and child behavior problems. Stonybrook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, R. E. (2011). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glen, S. (2015). Benjamini-Hochberg procedure StatisticsHowTo. https://www.statisticshowto.com/benjamini-hochberg-procedure/

  • Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive-contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02905.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gutowski, E., & Goodman, L. A. (2020). Like I’m invisible”: IPV survivor-mothers’ perceptions of seeking child custody through the family court system. Journal of Family Violence, 35(5), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00063-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutowski, E. R., & Goodman, L. A. (2022). Coercive control in the courtroom: The legal abuse scale (LAS). Journal of Family Violence, 1–16 .https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00408-3

  • Hamby, S. (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory Research Practice and Policy, 1, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma Violence and Abuse, 15, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014520723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Lee, K. M., Park, S. K., Lee, J. E., Ahn, H. S., Shin, H. Y., Kang, H. J., Koo, H. H., Seo, J. J., Choi, J. E., Ahn, Y. O., & Kang, D. (2010). Genome-wide association study of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Korea. Leukemia Research, 34, 1271–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leukres.2010.02.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hardesty, J. L., Ogolsky, B. G., Raffaelli, M., Whittaker, A., Crossman, K. A., Haselschwerdt, M. L., Mitchell, E. T., & Khaw, L. (2017). Coparenting relationship trajectories: Marital violence linked to change and variability after separation. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 844–854. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000323

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, E. M., Clingempeel, W. G., Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Stanley Hagan, M., Hollier, E. A., & Lindner, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, (2–3, Serial No. 227) .https://doi.org/10.2307/1166050

  • Holmes, S. C., Maxwell, C. D., Cattaneo, L. B., Bellucci, B. A., & Sullivan, T. P. (2022). Criminal protection orders among women victims of intimate partner violence: Women’s experiences of court decisions, processes, and their willingness to engage with the system in the future. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, NP16253–NP16276. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211021965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2011). Controversies in divorce mediation and intimate partner violence: A focus on the children. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Beck, C. J. A., & Applegate, A. G. (2010). The mediator’s assessment of safety issues and concerns (MASIC): A screening interview for intimate partner violence and abuse. Family Court Review, 48, 646–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.001339.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Beck, C. J., Applegate, A. G., Adams, J. M., Rossi, F. S., Jiang, L. J., Tomlinson, C. S., & Hale, D. F. (2021a). Intimate partner violence (IPV) and family dispute resolution: A randomized controlled trial comparing shuttle mediation, videoconferencing mediation, and litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(1), 45–64. http://dx.doi.org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1037/law0000278

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A. G., Beck, C. J., Rossi, F. S., Adams, J. M., Jiang, L. J., Tomlinson, C. S., & Hale, D. F. (2021b). Intimate partner violence and family dispute resolution: Follow-up findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing shuttle mediation, videoconferencing mediation, and litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000309

  • Jiang, L. J., Applegate, A. G., Tomlinson, C. S., Rossi, F. S., Beck, C. J., Adams, J. M., & Holtzworth‐Munroe, A. (2023). Parents reporting partner violence: Reaching or not reaching agreement in mediation or litigating without mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21387

  • Kelly, J. B. (2004). Family mediation reseach: Is there empirical support for the field? Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22, 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khaw, L., Bermea, A. M., Hardesty, J. L., Saunders, D., & Whittaker, A. M. (2021). The system had choked me too”: Abused mothers’ perceptions of the custody determination process that resulted in negative custody outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 4310–4334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2009). An ultra brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: The PHQ-4. Psychosomatics, 50(6), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3182(09)70864-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landrum, S. (2011). The ongoing debate about mediation in the context of domestic violence: A call for empirical studies of mediation effectiveness. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, 12, 425–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macie, K. M., & Stolberg, A. L. (2003). Assessing parenting after divorce: The co-parenting Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39(1–2), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v39n01_06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 3–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, J. E., & Tan, E. S. (2017). Young children in divorce and separation: Pilot study of a mediation-based co-parenting intervention. Family Court Review, 55, 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. H., Powell, L., Blumenthal, J., Norten, J., Ironson, G., Pitula, C. R., & Berkman, L. F. (2003). A short social support measure for patients recovering from myocardial infarction: The ENRICHD Social Support Inventory. Journal of Cadiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention, 23(6), 398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark, L., Harrell, A., & Salem, P. (1995). Domestic violence and empowerment in custody and visitation cases. Family Court Review, 33, 30–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen-Feng, V. N., Hogdon, H., Emerson, D., Silverberg, R., & Clark, C. J. (2020). Moderators of treatment efficacy in a randomized controlled trial of trauma-sensitive yoga as an adjunctive treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Trauma: Theory Research Practice and Policy, 12, 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ogolsky, B. G., Hardesty, J. L., Theisen, J. C., Park, S. Y., Maniotes, C. R., Whittaker, A. M., & Akinbode, T. D. (2022). Parsing through public records: When and how is self-reported violence documented and when does it influence custody outcomes? Journal of Family Violence, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00401-w

  • Petersen, I. T., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2016). Identifying an efficient set of items sensitive to clinical-range externalizing problems in children. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pokman, V., Rossi, F. S., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A. G., Beck, C. J. A., & D’Onofrio, B. M. (2014). Mediator’s assessment of safety issues and concerns (MASIC): Reliability and validity of a new intimate partner violence screen. Assessment, 21, 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114528372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Putz, J. W., Ballard, R. H., Arany, J. G., Applegate, A. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2012). Comparing the mediation agreements of families with and without a history of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, 50(3), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01457.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

    Google Scholar 

  • Raines, S., Choi, Y., Johnson, J., & Coker, K. (2016). Safety, satisfaction, and settlement in domestic relations mediations: New findings. Family Court Review, 54, 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, E. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Zeoli, A. M. (2012). Secondary victimization of abused mothers by family court mediators. Feminist Criminology, 7(3), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430827

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F. S., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Applegate, A. G. (2015). Does level of intimate partner violence and abuse predict the content of family mediation agreements? Family Court Review, 53, 134–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F. S., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A. G., Beck, C. J., Adams, J. M., & Hale, D. F. (2017). Shuttle and online mediation: A review of available research and implications for separating couples reporting intimate partner violence or abuse. Family Court Review, 55(3), 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F. S., Applegate, A. G., Beck, C. J., Timko, C., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2022). Screening for intimate partner violence in family mediation: An examination of multiple methodological approaches using item response theory. Assessment, 29(8), 1641–1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211022843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., Braver, S. L., & Fogas, B. S. (1986). Significant events of children of divorce: Toward the assessment of a risky situation. In S. M. Auerbach & A. Stolberg (Eds.), Crisis intervention with children and families. Hemisphere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D. G., Sullivan, C., Tolman, R. M., & Grabarek, M. (2005). Supervised Visitation and Exchange Program Brief Safety Measure [Measurement instrument]. National Evaluation of the Safe Havens Demonstration Initiative: Final Report. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, November 27, 2006.

  • Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s report of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126465

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tein, J., Sandler, I., Braver, S., & Wolchik, S. (2013). Development of a brief parent-report risk index for children following parental divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 925–936. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034571

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tishler, C. L., Bartholomae, S., Katz, B. L., & Landry-Meyer, L. (2004). Is domestic violence relevant? An exploratory analysis of couples referred for mediation in family court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 1042–1062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolchik, S. A., Fernaughty, A. M., & Braver, S. L. (1996). Residential and nonresidential parents’ perspectives on visitation problems. Family Relations, 45(2), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/585295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zill, N. (1990). Behavior problems index based on parent report. Washington, D.C.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Holly Huber Gifford, Lily J. Jiang, Claire S. Tomlinson & Amy Holtzworth-Munroe

  2. School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington at Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, USA

    Connie J. Beck

  3. Maurer School of Law, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Amy G. Applegate

  4. Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division, District of Columbia Superior Court, Washington, DC, USA

    Jeannie M. Adams

  5. Center for Innovation to Implementation, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Fernanda S. Rossi

  6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Fernanda S. Rossi

Authors
  1. Holly Huber Gifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lily J. Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Connie J. Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amy G. Applegate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jeannie M. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fernanda S. Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Claire S. Tomlinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly Huber Gifford.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This project was supported by Award No. 2013-VA-CX-0044, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and in part by the VA Office of Academic Affiliations and Health Services Research and Development Service Research funds. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice or the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government. Ideas and parts of the data presented in this work have been presented at a national virtual poster session for the American Psychology-Law Society (March 2021) and at a regional conference for the American Family and Conciliation Courts (November 2021). In addition, data from this study are archived at: Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy, and Beck, Connie J.A., Intimate Partner Violence and Custody Decisions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Outcomes from Family Court, Shuttle Mediation, or Videoconferencing Mediation, Washington D.C., 2017-2018. ICPSR37162-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2021-01-28. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37162.v1.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 32.7 KB)

ESM 2

(DOCX 42.3 KB)

ESM 3

(DOCX 62.6 KB)

ESM 4

(DOCX 46.8 KB)

ESM 5

(DOCX 32.1 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huber Gifford, H., Jiang, L.J., Beck, C.J. et al. Intimate Partner Violence Predicting Outcomes in Specialized Mediation and Traditional Litigation. J Fam Viol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00599-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00599-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation