Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2001. Vol. 69, No. 2. 323-332 0022-006X/OI/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-006X.69.2.323

Child Custody Mediation and Litigation: Custody, Contact, and

Coparenting 12 Years After Initial Dispute Resolution

Robert E. Emery, Lisa Laumann-Billings, Mary C. Waldron, David A. Sbarra, and Peter Dillon
University of Virginia

Long-term follow-up data were obtained on families who had been randomly assigned to mediate or
litigate their child custody disputes. In comparison with families who litigated custody, nonresidential
parents who mediated were more involved in multiple areas of their children's lives, maintained more
contact with their children, and had a greater influence in coparenting 12 years after the resolution of their
custody disputes. The increased involvement of nonresidential parents who mediated did not lead to an
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

associated increase in coparenting conflict. Parents who mediated also made more changes in their
children's living arrangements over the years. For the most part, the changes apparently reflect increased
cooperation and flexibility. Satisfaction declined for parents (especially fathers) in both groups over time,
but fathers remained much more satisfied if they mediated rather than litigated custody. Few differences
in satisfaction were found between mothers in the 2 groups. The 12-year follow-up data indicate that,
even in contested cases, mediation encourages both parents to remain involved in their children's lives
after divorce without increasing coparenting conflict.

In less than two decades, divorce mediation has grown from a
novel idea to a widely implemented alternative for settling divorce
and child custody disputes (Elrod & Spector, 1997; Emery, 1995;
Hendricks, 1993-1994). The rapid development of mediation has
been spurred by broad concerns that the adversary settlement of
divorce disputes, whether through attorney negotiations or litiga-
tion, creates problems both for the administration of justice and for
the well-being of divorced families, especially children. Adversary
procedures in divorce cases repeatedly have been criticized as
expensive, time-consuming, and divisive. Divorce mediation has
been promoted as a way of increasing efficiency in the dispute
resolution process, improving party satisfaction, and raising com-
pliance with divorce agreements (Emery & Wyer, 1987b; Irving &
Benjamin, 1995; Kelly, 1996). Divorce mediation also has been
said to be a way of helping families to negotiate agreements and
renegotiate relationships in a more adaptive manner than adversary
procedures. In comparison with adversary settlement, mediation
has been hypothesized to promote individual well-being and to
preserve family relationships that continue despite the end of the
marriage (Emery, 1994).
Emery and colleagues began studying divorce mediation in the
1980s in a series of investigations designed to examine whether
mediation produced more desirable outcomes than did litigation
for the administration of justice and/or for family well-being. In
both an initial study (Emery & Wyer, 1987a) and in a replication
Robert E. Emery, Lisa Laumann-Billings, Mary C. Waldron, David A.
Sbarra, and Peter Dillon, Department of Psychology, University of Vir-
ginia.
This research was supported by grants from the William T. Grant
Foundation. We thank Erica Kovacs for her assistance in this research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert E.
Emery, Department of Psychology, Gilmer Hall, Box 400400, University
of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904. Electronic mail may be sent to
ree@virginia.edu.
323
study (Emery, Matthews, & Wyer, 1991), families petitioning a
Virginia court for a custody hearing were assigned at random
either to attempt mediation or to continue with adversary proce-
dures (attorney negotiation, litigation). The mediation service was
developed for the purposes of the research, and a detailed treat-
ment manual is available (Emery, 1994). In addition to assessing
families about 1 month after dispute resolution, a follow-up study
was completed approximately 18 months later (Emery, Matthews,
& Kitzmann, 1994; Kitzmann & Emery, 1994).
Among the major findings of this research were the following:
(a) Most disputing parents reached an agreement in mediation,
thereby dramatically reducing litigation rates (only 11 % of medi-
ation families proceeded from the petition to an actual court
hearing, whereas 72% of families in the litigation control group did
so); (b) mediation agreements were more likely to specify joint
legal custody, but otherwise the content of the agreements was not
different between groups (mothers assumed primary physical cus-
tody in nearly all cases); (c) fathers reported much more satisfac-
tion with mediation than with adversary settlement; (d) mothers, as
a group, were more satisfied than fathers, and mothers generally
were equally satisfied with mediation and adversary settlement; (e)
relitigation in the 2 years following initial dispute settlement was
somewhat lower among the mediation than the adversary group;
(f) both immediately after dispute resolution and at the 18-month
follow-up, the quality of family relationships and the psycholog-
ical adjustment among parents was not different between groups,
except that men who mediated tended to report less coparenting
conflict at the 18-month follow-up; and (g) decreases in parental
conflict between the initial and follow-up assessments predicted
better psychological adjustment among children, but no differ-
ences in child adjustment were found between the mediation and
the litigation groups at the 18-month follow-up (Emery et al.,
1994, 1991; Emery & Wyer, 1987a; Kitzmann & Emery, 1994).
These findings are broadly consistent with the body of empirical
research comparing mediation with adversary settlement (Ben-
 324 BRIEF REPORTS
jamin & Irving, 1995; Emery, Kitzmann, & Waldron, 1999; Grych
& Fincham, 1992; Kelly, 1996). However, the findings regarding
gender differences continue to be a point of some controversy.
Some investigators also have found greater differences in satisfac-
tion with mediation than with litigation among men than among
women (Bickerdike, 1998), whereas others have found no gender
differences (Kelly, 1989; Kelly & Duryee, 1992; Sullivan,
Schwebel, Lind, & Shimberg, 1997). The question of whether
mediation is equally beneficial to mothers and fathers is especially
important because some feminist advocates have asserted that
mediation disadvantages women (e.g., Grillo, 1991). Although
gender differences are not the primary focus of the present re-
search, it should be noted that the differences between mothers and
fathers in our own research are primarily attributable to the dis-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
advantage of men in litigation and not to the disadvantage of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
women in mediation (Emery, 1994; Emery et al., 1991).
The present article details findings from a long-term follow-up
study of the families in our samples. Assessments were conducted
approximately 12 years after the families reached a settlement
either in mediation or through adversary procedures. There are
several important reasons for interest in a long-term follow-up
study of mediation and litigation. First, to our knowledge, the
present research is the only systematic study to compare the
outcomes of mediation and litigation beyond 1 or 2 years after
initial dispute resolution. (We conducted a 9-year follow-up of
some of the families in the present sample and found more non-
residential parent-child contact and more coparenting cooperation
among families who mediated than litigated [Dillon & Emery,
1996], However, this was only a pilot study for the present inves-
tigation, and it included limited measures and many fewer fami-
lies.) Second, it is possible, as we hypothesized, that the immediate
and short-term benefits of mediation accumulate over the years as
a result of coparenting cooperation. That is, differences in the
outcomes of mediation and litigation may be enhanced rather than
diminished over time because mediation produces more positive
sum (win-win) outcomes. Third, some benefits of mediation may
not be evident in the first few years after a marital separation
because family disruptions during this crisis phase of divorce
(Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998) obscure the positive
effects of mediation. Fourth, because of normative patterns of
change after divorce, it may be impossible to observe some im-
portant differences in the outcome of mediation versus litigation
until several years after the marital separation. For example, con-
tact between children and nonresidential parents is much higher in
the first years after divorce than it is many years postdivorce
(Seltzer, 1991); thus, any differences in nonresidential parent-
child contact between mediation and litigation may not be ob-
served for years.
This article focuses on differences between groups in terms of
living arrangements, nonresidential parent-child contact and in-
volvement, and parents' satisfaction 12 years after dispute resolu-
tion. More specifically, the present research compares groups in
terms of (a) children's primary residence, (b) children's changes in
residence over time, (c) children's contact with nonresidential
parents, (d) nonresidential parents' involvement and conflict in
coparenting, (e) women's and men's acceptance of marital termi-
nation and depression, and (f) women's and men's satisfaction
with dispute resolution. Evidence on the quality of parenting and
on children's psychological adjustment is discussed in a separate
report (Emery, Laumann-Billings, Sbarra, & Waldron (2001)).
Method
Participants
Participants were 71 families who had petitioned for child custody
hearings from a Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in central
Virginia between 1983 and 1986. Families came from an initial study
(Emery & Wyer, 1987b) and a replication study (Emery et al., 1991),
which, together, included 35 families who mediated and 36 families who
litigated their custody disputes. The present, long-term follow-up sample
included 27 of the mothers and 25 of the fathers who had mediated, as well
as 25 of the mothers and 23 of the fathers who had reached a settlement
using adversary procedures. These Time 3 assessments took place an
average of 12 years after the first interviews had been completed (range:
128-160 months).
At Time 3, the sample had the following demographic characteristics.
The average age was 39 years for mothers (range: 30-54 years) and 43
years for fathers (range: 30-62 years). Seventy-nine percent of the sample
was White, and 21% was Black. The sample was largely of lower socio-
economic status. Average reported annual family income at the 12-year
follow-up was $27,687 for the men in the sample (range: $3,000-$60,000),
and $22,532 for the women in the sample (range: $12,000-$80,000). The
average number of years of education for the men was 11.7 years and for
the women was 11.9 years. Approximately three quarters of both the men
and the women had a high school education or less. Most families were
from Protestant religious backgrounds. About half of the men and women
were either remarried or living with a partner at the time of the long-term
follow-up interview. Both the men and the women had an average of 2.5
biological children (range: 1-7). The average age of the target child was 17
years. Two thirds of the target children were male. (The target child was
the child the parents had together and who had been the subject of the
custody dispute—the oldest child in cases with multiple children.) No
significant differences were found between the mediation and litigation
groups on any of these background characteristics.
Procedure
As described in earlier reports, parents initially were approached at
random about either attempting mediation or participating in an evaluation
of the court's services (litigation control group). Seventy-one percent of
families approached about mediation and 84% of the families approached
about the evaluation agreed to participate, and no meaningful differences
were found between groups or between those who agreed or refused to
participate. (Analyses of demographic and archival court data revealed
only minor income-employment differences; see Emery et al., 1991.)
After random assignment, families either proceeded through the usual court
settlement processes or entered the mediation service. The mediation
intervention has been described in detail elsewhere (see Emery, 1994).
Mediation took place inside a courthouse, was conducted by one of four
pairs of male and female comediators, and was limited to no more than six
2-hr sessions (average = 2.4 sessions). Only 4 out of 35 mediation cases
had a contested court hearing, whereas 26 out of 36 cases in the adversary
group proceeded into litigation (Emery et al., 1991).
The focus of the present report is on Time 3 (the 12-year follow-up) and
comparisons between family functioning at Time 1 (about 1 month after
dispute resolution) and Time 3. Time 1 is used as the reference point
because (a) comparisons between long-term functioning and functioning
immediately after dispute settlement are of greatest substantive interest,
and (b) Time 2 (about 18 months after dispute resolution) data were
missing on some families for whom Time 1 and Time 3 data were available
(thus the N is maximized by focusing on Time 1 alone).
 BRIEF REPORTS
Measures
The following measures obtained at Time 3 are the focus of the present
study. In most cases, the identical measures also were obtained at Time 1.
Custody and changes in residence. Structured questions assessed chil-
dren's primary residence and changes in residence. For children who had
graduated from high school, these questions were worded to inquire about
residential arrangements prior to high school graduation.
Contact with the nonresidential parent. Eleven items from a national
survey reported by Seltzer (1991) were used to assess children's contact
with nonresidential parents, as well as coparenting contacts (e.g., "How
often did your child visit his or her nonresidential parent in the past year?").
For children who had graduated from high school, these questions were
worded to assess contact during the last year of high school. Each item has
a structured response format, and the items are intended to be treated
separately and not as a scale. This measure was not administered during
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
earlier assessments.
Nonresidential Parent-Child Involvement (NPCI) Scale. The NPCI is
a 10-item scale that rates the nonresidential parent's involvement in a
number of parental responsibilities, such as discipline, attending school or
church functions, or talking with the child about problems (Ahrons, 1981,
1983). The NPCI yields a single scale, the mean of the items, with higher
scores indicating greater involvement. At Time 3, the alpha for the NPCI
was .92 for mothers and .93 for fathers, and mothers' and fathers' NPCI
scores were correlated .68 (N = 34, p < .01). The measure was not
administered during earlier assessments.
Acrimony Scale (AS). The AS is a 25-item measure of coparenting
conflict between separated or divorced parents that yields a single acri-
mony score, the mean of all items, with higher scores indicating greater
conflict (Shaw & Emery, 1987). At Time 3, the alpha for the AS was .88
for fathers and .91 for mothers, and mothers' and fathers' AS scores were
correlated .41 (N = 31, p < .05). Correlations between Time 1 AS and
Time 3 AS were .41 (N = 33, p < .05) for fathers and .32 for mothers
(N = 4l,p < .04).
Nonacceptance of Marital Termination (AMT) Scale. The AMT is an
11-item scale that taps a range of feelings about accepting the end of the
marriage (see Kitson, 1982). It yields a single scale, the mean of the items,
with higher scores indicating greater nonacceptance. At Time 3, the alpha
for the AMT was .80 for mothers and .75 for fathers, and mothers' and
fathers' AMT scores were correlated .05 (N = 37, ns). Correlations
between Time 1 AMT and Time 3 AMT were .40 for mothers (N = 46, p <
.01) and .46 (N = 38, p < .01) for fathers.
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The BDI is a 21-item inventory that
assesses components of depressive states (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988;
Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Hammen, & Ingram, 1987). Its single scale is the
mean of the items, with higher scores indicating more depression. At
Time 3, the alpha for the BDI was .92 for mothers and .76 for fathers, and
the correlation between mothers' and fathers' BDI scores was .40 (N = 39,
p < .05). Correlations between Time I BDI and Time 3 BDI were .22
(N = 47, p = .12) for mothers and .19 (N = 38, p = .24) for fathers.
Structured Interview (SI). The SI is a 19-item measure of parents'
satisfaction with their dispute resolution experiences (e.g., "In your contact
with the court, do you feel that your rights were protected?"). Responses
are given on a 5-point scale, and items are intended to be treated separately
and not as a scale. The identical items were asked at Time 1 and Time 3.
For the 39 fathers for whom data were available, the average correlation
between Time 1 and Time 3 for the 19 SI items was .29 (range: .00-.53).
For 47 mothers, the average correlation was .23 (range: .05—.51).
Results
The results are organized around five areas, which compare the
mediation and litigation groups in terms of (a) children's primary
residence and changes in residence, (b) nonresidential parents'
325
contact with children and influence on residential parents, (c)
nonresidential parents' coparenting involvement and conflict, (d)
women's and men's nonacceptance of marital termination and
their depression, and (e) women's and men's satisfaction with
dispute settlement. For the first topic (a), data were based on
consensus codes or on children's reports (for reasons explained
below). For the second and third topics (b and c), data were based
on the reports of residential and nonresidential parents for reasons
of conceptual interest and clarity. For example, residential parents'
reports of children's contact with the nonresidential parent are of
more interest than mothers' reports on the same measure (mothers
were not always residential parents). Unfortunately, sample sizes
were too small to analyze the interaction between residence and
parents' gender. For the fourth and fifth topics (d and e), data were
based on the reports of women, and men also for reasons of
conceptual interest and clarity. For example, gender differences in
satisfaction with mediation and litigation are of particular interest.
Sample sizes vary somewhat depending on the measure, the in-
formant, and the missing data.
For all measures that were also completed at Time 1 (i.e.,
demographics, the AS, the AMT, the BDI, and the SI), attrition
analyses (Kendall & Sugarman, 1997) were conducted by com-
puting 2 X 2 (Mediation-Litigation Group X Time 3
Participation-Nonparticipation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
or multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) on Time 1
scores for the measure. The primary focus of these analyses is
selective attrition, that is, selection effects that differ between the
mediation and litigation groups (as indexed by the Group X Time
interaction) because such effects could bias group comparisons.
On demographic measures, fathers who did not participate at
Time 3 were less likely to report a Protestant religious affiliation
and had significantly higher incomes a Time 1, but no evidence for
selective attrition was found on the basis of any demographic
variable. For other measures, analyses for selective attrition are
discussed together with the findings for each measure. However, it
should be noted now that only one general pattern of selective
attrition was detected. High-conflict nonresidential parents tended
to drop out of the litigation group but to remain in the mediation
group. The same pattern was not found for residential parents. This
pattern biases the nonresidential parent data against the hypothesis
that mediation will produce long-term benefits relative to litiga-
tion. It also indicates that the internal validity of the experimental
design is stronger for residential than for nonresidential parents.
Time 3 Residence and Changes in Residence Between
Time 1 and Time 3
Data indicated that there were no significant differences be-
tween the mediation and litigation groups in terms of children's
primary residence at Time 3, ^(1, N = 54) < 1. In fact, the
proportion of children living in different residential arrangements
was virtually identical for the two groups. Most children (69%)
continued to reside primarily with their mothers, whereas 22%
lived mostly with their fathers, 2% were in joint physical custody,
and 4% lived primarily with neither parent. Three percent of
families reconciled, one family in each group. At Time 1, almost
all children resided with their mothers, and the increase in father
residence over time was statistically significant, ^(1, N =
47) = 17.58, p < 01.
 326 BRIEF REPORTS

According to children's report, significantly more families who
mediated (56%) than who litigated ( 2 1 % ) made at least one change
in children's living arrangements during the 12 years between
Time 1 and Time 3. ^ 2 ( l . N = 49) = 6.38, p < .01. (Parents were
asked different questions about residential changes than were
children, and problems with the wording of items led to inaccurate
answers and missing data.) The average number of changes re-
ported by children in both groups was small, however, with a mean
ot 1.4 changes for the mediation group and of 0.3 changes for the
litigation control group. /(50) = 3.30. /; < .01. Still, it is of interest
!o note that five families who mediated (18%) made four or more
changes in children's residence, whereas no families in the litiga-
tion control group made as many changes.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tial parents in the mediation group saw their children significantly
more often than did those in the litigation group, ^2(2, N =
47) = 5.85, p < .05.
Similar data also were obtained for telephone contact between
children and nonresidential parents (see Table 1). Again, telephone
contacts in the litigation group were quite similar to the national
sample, whereas the mediation group had more frequent telephone
contact. Response choices were again collapsed into (a) no contact
in the past year (4% mediation, 45% litigation), (b) some contact
in the past year (42% mediation, 41% litigation), and (c) weekly
contact in the past year (54% mediation, 14% litigation). In this
case, differences between the mediation and litigation groups were
statistically significant, x*(2, N = 46) = 14.45, p < .01.
Residential parents who mediated also reported talking more

Nonresidential Parent Contact often with nonresidential parents about their children. Data were
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

collapsed into the same three categories of no contact in the past

Data on the frequency of visits between children and nonresi- year (17% mediation, 35% litigation), some contact in the past
dential parents are summarized in Table 1, which also includes year (54% mediation, 55% litigation), and weekly contact in the
comparative data on the same measure for a national sample of past year (29% mediation, 10% litigation), but these differences
families who were divorced for 1 1 or more years (Seltzer. 1991). were not statistically significant, x*(2, N = 42) = 3.43, p = .18.
To keep data consistent with the national survey and to maximize Among parents who did talk, however, significantly more residen-
the sample si/.e, we based contact data on the residential parent's tial parents in the mediation group (23% mediation, 0% litigation)
report of nonresidential parent-child visits. As indicated by in- reported that the nonresidential parent had a great deal of influence
spection of Table 1. visitation frequency in the litigation group was (vs. none-some) on their decision making, \2(\, N = 36) = 3.94,
quite similar to the national sample, whereas visitation was more p < .05.
frequent in the mediation group. Because expected values were too Residential parents in the mediation group also reported that
small for the cells when contact data were divided into six cate- their children were more likely to know when the next visit would
gories, we collapsed the data into three conceptually meaningful occur always-usually (52% mediation, 28% litigation),
groups for statistical analysis: no contact in the past year ( 1 1 % sometimes-rarely (35% mediation, 33% litigation), never (13%
mediation. 35% litigation), some contact in the past year (58% mediation, 38% litigation), but this difference was not statistically
mediation. 56% litigation), and weekly contact in the past year significant, x*(2, N = 42) = 4.26, p = .12. For other items on the
(30% mediation, 9% litigation). Results indicate that nonresiden- contact measure, differences between the mediation and litigation
groups were smaller, although the percentages are of interest
descriptively. Residential parents said that nonresidential parents
Table 1
failed to show for visits usually or all the time for 13% of
Residential Parents' Report of Contact Between Children and mediation families and for 25% of litigation families and that
Nonresidential Parents
nonresidential parents canceled plans usually or all the time for
Medi ation Liti gation 17% of the mediation families and for 30% of the litigation
families. Finally, a few items from the Seltzer (1991) contact
c
Frequency /< n <7r n National" % measure could not be analyzed because there were too many
missing values. Data were missing for legitimate reasons; for
Visit in past year
example, few children had extended visits with nonresidential
Not at all \1 3 35 8 .31 parents.
Once 4 1 4 1 19
Several tunes 27 7 17 4 22
1-3 times per month 27 7 35 8 16 Coparenting Involvement and Conflict
Once a week 11 3 9 -> 8
Several times per week 19 5 0 0 4 According to residential parents' reports on the NPCI, non-
Total 100 26 100 23 100 residential parents who mediated (M = 2.30, SD = 0.93) were
more involved with their children than were nonresidential
Phone calls— mail in past year
parents who litigated (M = 1.63, SD = 0.81). This difference
Not at all 4 1 45 10 30 was statistically significant, F(l, 46) = 6.63, p < .01. In fact,
Once 8 2 9 j 8 nonresidential parents who mediated were notably more in-
Several times 15 4 18 4 28
1-3 times per month 19 5 14 3 16 volved with their children than were those who litigated on
Once a week 27 7 4 1 9 every item on this measure, including disciplining, dressing-
Several times per week 27 7 9 2 9 grooming, religious—moral functioning, running errands for the
Total 100 26 100 22 100 child, celebrating holidays, attending significant events, partic-
" Data are from Seltzer's (1991) national sample ot families. Contact data
ipating in school-church functions, engaging in recreational
are for the subgroup of families I 1 or more years postdivorce to be activities, discussing problems, and taking vacations. Inspec-
comparable with present /2-year postdivorce sample. tion of item frequencies indicated that differences were ex-
 BRIEF REPORTS
plained by the very low involvement of nonresidential parents
in the litigation group, and not by the very high involvement of
nonresidential parents in the mediation group. For example, of
nonresidential parents who were said to be "not at all" involved
in religious-moral training, 95% had litigated whereas 48%
mediated.
According to nonresidential parents' reports of their own in-
volvement on the NPCI, nonresidential parents who mediated
(M = 2.78, SD = 0.96) were more involved than were those who
litigated (M = 2.44, SD = 1.07), but this difference was not
statistically significant, F(\, 38) = 1.04,p = .31. As noted earlier,
it seems likely that the absence of a difference on nonresidential
parents' report is accounted for, in part, by selective attrition of
high-conflict nonresidential parents out of the litigation sample.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
However, the NPCI was not administered at Time 1 (or Time 2),
so this possibility could not be tested directly.
Acrimony (AS) at Time 3 was reported to be somewhat lower
by residential parents who mediated (M = 49.08, SD = 12.83)
than who litigated (M = 51.48, SD = 10.05). However, the effect
for group was not significant according to a Group (mediation-
litigation) X Time (Time 1-Time 3) repeated measures ANOVA,
F(\. 37) = 1.05, p = .31. Residential parents' reports of copa-
renting conflict actually increased slightly over time, but the effect
for time was not significant, F(l, 37) < 1, ns. Finally, the inter-
action between group and time was not statistically significant,
F(l, 37) < 1, ns. The absence of an effect for group on the
residential parents' AS cannot be explained by selective attrition.
The interaction between attrition (Time 3 participants vs. nonpar-
ticipants) and group (mediation vs. litigation) was not significant
according to a 2 X 2 ANOVA on Time 1 AS scores, F( 1, 42)< 1,
ns.
Consistent with the reports of residential parents, nonresidential
parents also reported lower levels of coparenting conflict on the AS at
Time 3 if they had mediated (M = 45.42, SD = 10.25) rather than
litigated (M = 50.98, SD = 15.11). However, the effect for group was
not statistically significant according to a Group (mediation-litiga-
tion) X Time (Time 1-Time 3) repeated measures ANOVA, F(l,
33) < 1, ns. Nonresidential parents did not report significant changes
in coparenting conflict over time, F( 1, 33) < 1, ns, and although mean
levels of conflict declined for the mediation group and increased for
the litigation group, the interaction between group and time was not
significant, F(l, 33) = 1.92, p = .18. However, the findings for
nonresidential parents' reports must be qualified by some evidence of
selective attrition. In testing for selective attrition, the interaction
between attrition (Time 3 participants vs. nonparticipants) and group
(mediation vs. litigation) was not significant according to a 2 X 2
ANOVA on Time 1 AS, F(I, 41) = 2.67, p = .11. Still, inspection of
means indicated that the mediation Time 3 nonparticipants
(M = 40.00, SD = 15.64) had lower Time 1 AS scores than did
Time 3 mediation participants (M = 49.38, SD = 9.26), whereas the
litigation nonparticipants (M = 53.67, SD = 13.70) had higher
Time I AS scores than did Time 3 litigation participants (M = 48.71,
SD = 13.87). This pattern may have biased the effect for group at
Time 3, as the mediation group was composed of nonresidential
parents who had higher Time 1 AS scores, whereas the litigation
group was composed of nonresidential parents who had lower Time 1
AS scores.
327
Acceptance of Marital Termination (AMT) and Depressive
Symptoms
Measures of individual well-being were analyzed according to
the reports of women and men rather than to the reports of
residential and nonresidential parents. This was done for concep-
tual reasons (e.g., known differences in reports of depressive
symptoms between men and women) and to be consistent with
published analyses from earlier waves of data collection.
Nonacceptance of marital termination at Time 3 was somewhat
higher among women who mediated (M = 18.41, SD = 5.92) than
it was among women who litigated (M = 15.96, SD = 4.97).
However, the effect for group was not statistically significant
according to a Group (mediation-litigation) X Time (Time
1-Time 3) repeated measures ANOVA, F(l, 44) = 2.34, p = .13.
Mothers' AMT scores declined over time (they became more
accepting of the marital termination), but the effect for time was
not statistically significant, F(l, 44) = 2.92, p = .09. There was a
nonsignificant interaction between group and time, F(l, 44) < 1,
ns. The absence of a group effect cannot be explained by selective
attrition. The interaction between attrition (Time 3 participants vs.
nonparticipants) and group (mediation vs. litigation) was not sig-
nificant according to a 2 X 2 ANOVA on Time 1 AMT, F(l,
59) < 1, ns.
Nonacceptance of marital termination (AMT) was slightly
higher among fathers who mediated (M = 21.14, SD = 6.83) than
among fathers who litigated (M = 19.76, SD = 6.23). However,
the effect for group was not statistically significant according to a
Group (mediation-litigation) X Time (Time 1-Time 3) repeated
measures ANOVA, F(l, 36) < 1, ns. Fathers' AMT declined
significantly and substantially over time (they became much more
accepting of the marital termination), F(l, 36) = 29.28, p = .001,
but there was no interaction between group and time, F(l, 36) < 1,
ns. These findings should be considered in the light of some
evidence for selection attrition. The interaction between attrition
(Time 3 participants vs. nonparticipants) and group (mediation vs.
litigation) was not significant according to a 2 X 2 ANOVA on
Time 1 AMT, F(l, 55) = 2.74, p = .10. However, inspection of
means indicated that the mediation nonparticipant (M = 28.12,
SD = 7.97) and participant (M = 27.28, SD = 7.31) fathers
differed little on Time 1 AMT, whereas the litigation nonpartici-
pant (M = 21.54, SD = 7.95) and participant (M = 28.73,
SD = 10.36) fathers differed notably on Time 1 AMT. This pattern
may have biased the group comparison because litigation fathers
who participated at Time 3 were more nonaccepting at Time 1 than
were nonparticipants.
Depressive symptoms (BDI) were essentially the same among
mothers who mediated (M = 8.17, SD = 9.13) or litigated
(M = 7.73, SD = 8.38), and the effect for group was not statisti-
cally significant according to a Group (mediation-litigation) X
Time (Time 1-Time 3) repeated measures ANOVA, F(l, 45) < 1,
ns. Mothers' BDI declined over time, but the effect for time was
not significant, F(l, 45) = 1.77, p = .19, and there was no
interaction between group and time, F(l, 45) < 1, ns. The absence
of an effect for group cannot be explained by selective attrition.
The interaction between attrition (Time 3 participants vs. nonpar-
ticipants) and group (mediation vs. litigation) was not significant
according to a 2 X 2 ANOVA on Time 1 BDI, F(l, 57) < 1, ns.
 328 BRIEF REPORTS

Depressive symploms (BDI) were slightly lower among fathers
who niedKited (M = 4.70, SI.) = 3.70) than among fathers who
litigated (M = 5.89, SD = 6.32), but the effect for group was not
statistically significant according to a Group (mediation-litiga-
tion) X Time (Time 1-Time 3) repeated measures ANOVA, F(l,
45) < 1, ;;.v. Fathers' BDI declined significantly over time, F(l,
36) = 9.07, p = .01. hut there was no interaction between group
and time, /•"( 1, 36) = 2.35. p = .13. The absence of a group effect
cannot be explained by selective attrition. The interaction between
attrition (participants vs. nonparticipants) and group (mediation vs.
litigation) was not significant according to a 2 X 2 ANOVA on
Time 1 BDI. F ( l . 53) < 1, ns.
Satisfaction With Dispute Resolution
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
MANOVAs on the five sets of Time 1 SI items separately for
women and for men. For women, the multivariate interaction for
the two items rating the relationship with the former spouse was
significant, F(l, 57) = 3.25, p < .05, and attributable to a single
item. Women who remained in the litigation group at Time 3 were
more likely than women who dropped out of the litigation sample
to have said at Time 1 that the court caused problems in their
relationship with the former spouse. Attrition was not related to
this item in the mediation group. Other than this single item,
however, no other multivariate (or univariate) interaction terms
were statistically significant for the SI items for women, and
inspection of means indicated no clear pattern of selective attrition.
For men, none of the multivariate interaction terms was signifi-
cant, and inspection of item means indicated no obvious pattern of

We analyzed satisfaction with dispute resolution following differential attrition between groups from Time 1 to Time 3. Thus,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

an orthogonal planned comparisons design, consistent with
analyses at Time 1 and Time 2 (Emery et al., 1991. 1994;
Emery & Wyer, 1987a). Fathers in mediation and litigation
were compared, followed by mothers in the two groups, and
finally the combined group of mothers was contrasted with the
combined group of fathers. Five repeated measures (Time 1 vs.
Time 3) MANOVAs were conducted for each comparison using
SI items on satisfaction with (a) the process of dispute resolu-
tion, (b) the decisions that were reached, and the effect of the
court contact on (c) oneself, (d) the children, and (e) the
relationship with the former spouse.
To test for selective attrition on the SI, we conducted 2 (medi-
ation vs. litigation) X 2 (Time 3 participants vs. nonparticipants)
selective attrition based on Time 1 SI reports was minimal or
nonexistent.
Tables 2 and 3 contain means and standard deviations for the SI
data, as well as statistics for the effects of group, time, and their
interaction. As in earlier reports, significance tests for the SI items
were based on one-tailed probabilities, consistent with the predic-
tion that parents who mediated would be more satisfied than
parents who litigated. (All other statistics in the present report are
based on two-tailed probabilities.)
For fathers, four of five multivariate effects for group were
statistically significant. In all cases, fathers who mediated were
significantly more satisfied than fathers who litigated. In fact,
fathers who mediated were more positive than fathers who liti-

Table 2
Satisfaction With Dispute Settlement: Fathers

Mediation Litigation F

Cluster or item M SD M SD Group Time Group X Time

Court process 1.07 4.50*** <1

Satisfied with court's role 3.21 .20 2.91 1.34
Satisfied with own role 3.35 .23 3.13 1.32 <1
Satisfied with fairness of decisions 3.30 .26 2.61 1.34 7.39**
Feel had control over decision 2.26 .29 1.74 1.21 10.11**
Feel rights were protected 2.91 .38 2.43 1.34 17.89***
Knew about available options 3.00 .28 2.48 1.41 11.35***
Court outcome 2.89* 1.84 <]
Satisfied with decisions 3.39 .20 2.78 1.51 2.91*
Lost what you wanted 2.83 .30 3.83 1.50 10.79***
Won what you wanted 2.44 .34 2.09 1.56 1.61
Reached a lasting agreement 2.70 .61 2.26 1.42 2.21
Effect on self 2.34* 3.82** 1.81
Feelings were understood 2.54 .10 2.30 1.55 4.69* 12.32***
Concern was shown for you 2.67 .37 2.09 1.44 7.06** 9.11**
Court had bad effect on you 2.62 .06 3.61 1.47 8.07** 9.49**
Court had good effect on you 2.33 .27 1.70 1.22 4.46*
Effect on children 4.38** 5.57** <1
Concern was shown for children 3.61 .41 3.13 1.74 1.43 12.37***
Court had bad effect on children 2.22 .13 2.87 1.52 7.74** 8.65**
Court had good effect on children 2.13 .10 1.70 0.97 7.32** 1.71
Effect on relationship with children's mother 8.51*** 2.47* 2.58*
Caused problems with spouse 2.09 1.23 2.56 1.73 7.16** <1 4.71*
Settled problems with spouse 2.73 1.16 1.56 1.12 15.52*** 3.03* <1

Note. The (is for both the mediation and litigation groups were 23. Means are presented for Time 3 data only. Items were answered on a 5-point scale,
where / = not at all. 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat. 4 = quite a bit, and 5 = very much.
* / ' < .05. **/> < .01. * * * / > < . 0 0 1 .
 BRIEF REPORTS 329

Table 3
Satisfaction With Dispute Settlement: Mothers

Mediation Litigation

Cluster or item M SD M SD Group Time Group X Time

Court process <1 <1 1.28

Satisfied with court's role 3.70 0.87 3.64 1.38
Satisfied with own role 3.70 0.91 3.84 1.14
Satisfied with fairness of decisions 3.63 1.24 3.64 1.50
Feel had control over decision 2.89 1.42 2.96 1.37
Feel rights were protected 3.70 1.38 3.72 1.34
Knew about available options 3.48 1.22 3.56 1.42
Court outcome 1 .08 < 1 <1
Satisfied with decisions 3.74 0.98 3.96 1.27
Lost what you wanted 2.15 1.43 2.00 1.44
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Won what you wanted 3.33 1.39 3.72 1.62

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Reached a lasting agreement 2.52 1.37 3.56 1.6!

Effect on self <1 1.88 <l
Feelings were understood 3.22 1.25 3.32 1.55
Concern was shown for you 3.15 1.35 3.20 1.41
Court had bad effect on you 2.89 1.45 2.80 1 .50
Court had good effect on you 2.63 1.15 2.88 1.59
Effect on children <1 6.92*** <1
Concern was shown for children 4.00 1.1 1 3.64 1.55 4.08*
Court had bad effect on children 2.30 1.41 2.28 1.46 16.14***
Court had good effect on children 2.59 1.08 2.84 1 .37 <1
Effect on relationship with children's father 4.99** 4.51** 1.53
Caused problems with spouse 2.04 1.37 2.52 1.58 2.05 <1
Settled problems with spouse 2.07 1.00 3.12 1.69 3.16* 6.72**

Note. The n for the mediation group was 27; n for the litigation group was 25. Means are presented for Time 3 data only. Items were answered on a 5-point
scale, where 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = quite a bit, and 5 = v<?rv much.
* p < .05. **p<.Q\. ***/><.001.

gated on every SI item, and the effect sizes were large for several
items (e.g., "lost what you wanted;" see Table 2). Four of five
multivariate effects also were statistically significant for time.
With one exception, fathers reported less satisfaction with both
mediation and litigation at the 12-year follow-up than they had
reported 1 month after dispute settlement. The exception ac-
counted for the single significant interaction between group and
time. For the item asking whether the court's intevention caused
problems with their former spouse, fathers who litigated reported
more satisfaction (fewer problems caused) at Time 3 than they had
reported at Time 1; fathers who mediated reported less satisfaction
(more problems caused) at Time 3 than at Time 1. It should be
noted, however, that fathers who mediated still were significantly
more satisfied than were fathers who litigated at Time 3. That is,
in contrast to litigation fathers, at Time 3 mediation fathers con-
tinued to report that the court's intervention had caused fewer
problems with the children's mother. Thus, the overall pattern for
fathers was clear and consistent. Both groups of men were less
positive about their experiences in mediation-court at Time 3 than
at Time 1, but fathers who mediated nevertheless remained more
satisfied than fathers who litigated even 12 years after dispute
resolution.
For mothers, only one of five multivariate effects for group was
statistically significant. Women who litigated were more likely to
report that the court intervention helped to settle problems with
their former spouse (see Table 3). It is important to note that this
item is in the same cluster as the sole item associated with a
selection effect ("caused problems"), thus the difference was sig-
nificant despite the selection against it. The effect size was large
for the "settle problems" item, but the means were quite similar for
women who litigated or mediated on other SI items. Two of five
multivariate effects for time also were significant for mothers.
Whether they mediated or litigated, women reported less satisfac-
tion with the effects of dispute resolution on their children and on
their relationship with their former spouse at the 12-year follow-up
than they had reported 1 month after dispute resolution. Finally,
none of the interactions between group and time were statistically
significant for mothers. Thus, the overall pattern for mothers was
one of no significant differences between groups (except for one
item) and stable satisfaction except when rating the effects of both
mediation and litigation on family relationships.
For the third set of planned comparisons, the ratings of men who
mediated or litigated were combined and compared with the rat-
ings of the combined group of women. Two of five multivariate
analyses were statistically significant (see Table 4). Women re-
ported significantly greater satisfaction than men with the outcome
of dispute settlement and with the effect on their relationship with
the former spouse. Four of five multivariate effects also were
significant for time in these analyses. Consistent with other find-
ings, the satisfaction reported by both men and women declined
over the 12 years since initial dispute resolution. Finally, none of
the interactions between gender and time were statistically signif-
icant. Thus, the overall pattern by gender was one of declining
satisfaction over time, but women remained significantly more
satisfied with the outcome of dispute resolution and its impact on
the coparental relationship.
 330 BRIEF REPORTS

Table 4
Satisfaction With Dispute Settlement: Combined Croups of Mothers and Fathers

Fathers Mothers

Cluster or item M SD M SD Gender Time Gender x Time

Court process 1.18 7.60*** <1

3 15 .18 3.56 14 <- 1
^-~ 1

Satisfied with own role 3.33 .20 3.64 .09

Satisfied with fairness of decisions 3.02 .29 3.49 .41 14.09***
Feel had control over decision 1.95 .19 2.85 .42 4.93*
Feel rights were protected 2.67 .30 3.49 .37 36.26***
Knew about available options 2.74 .29 3.26 .29 8.43**
Court outcome 3.52** 1.25 <1
Satisfied with decisions 3.18 .32 3.72 .12 2.52
Lost w h a t you wanted 3.18 .43 2.18 .48 5.12*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Won what you wanted 2.26 .39 3.39 .57 11.22***

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Reached a lasting agreement 2.49 .47 2.72 .54 <1

Effect on self 1. 7 1 4.43** 1.02
Feelings were understood 2.45 .32 3.07 .38 4.34*
Concern was shown for you 2.37 .41 2.90 .41 10.99***
Court had bad effect on you 3.05 .28 3.07 .44 13.90***
Court had good effect on you 1.97 .21 2.47 .32 2.85*
Effect on children 2.03 9.06*** <1
Concern was shown for children 3.38 .55 3.61 .39 24.53***
Court had bad effect on children 2.33 .22 2.38 .50 14.29***
Court had good effect on children 1.95 .05 2.49 .21 4.15*
Effect on relationship with children's parent 2.80* 3.75* <1
Caused problems with spouse 2.24 .46 2.55 .59 <1 <1
Settled problems with spouse 2.18 .31 2.39 .40 3.45* 5.16*

Note. The (is for both the fathers and the mothers were 39. The sample size is reduced because cases can be included only when data are available from
both parents. Means are presented for Time 3 data only. Items were answered on a 5-point scale, where 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 =
quite a bit, and 5 = ver\' much.
* /> < .05. **/; < ,OL ***/> < .001.

Discussion greater contact and involvement of nonresidential parents were

Several differences in the outcomes of mediation and litigation
were found 12 years after the resolution of the child custody
disputes. The most important findings were that nonresidential
parents who mediated maintained more contact and involvement
with their children in comparison with nonresidential parents who
litigated child custody. Significant differences were found on four
key measures of nonresidential parent involvement in childrearing,
specifically, visitation frequency, telephone contact, influence on
the residential parents' decision making (among parents who
talked), and on all 10 items (and the mean) of the NPCI. Differ-
ences between groups were large on these measures because they
had to be given the relatively low power owing to the modest
sample sizes. For example, the effect size for the NPCI mean was
about 1 SD. It also should be noted that the higher levels of
nonresidential parent visitation frequency and telephone contact in
the mediation group as opposed to the litigation group are sub-
stantively meaningful (see Table 1). Given the pervasive policy
concern with the lack of involvement of nonresidential parents
(Emery, 1999). it is very important to recognize that 30% of
nonresidential parents who mediated saw their child weekly or
more (vs. 97< who litigated) or, conversely, that 11% who medi-
ated had not seen their child in the last year (vs. 35% who
litigated).
The consistency of findings and the magnitude of the effects for
nonresidential involvement are noteworthy. Furthermore, the
most evident in the reports of residential parents. Evidence indi-
cates that residential parents tend to underestimate the involvement
of nonresidential parents, or alternatively, that nonresidential par-
ents overestimate their own involvement (Braver, Wolchik, San-
dier, Fogas, & Zvetina, 1991). Thus, the increased involvement
found for the mediation group probably represents a conservative
estimate of their actual involvement. Because families were ran-
domly assigned to mediation or litigation and because no evidence
was found for selective attrition among residential parents, the
present research offers the best evidence to date that, relative to
adversary settlement, mediation causes nonresidential parents to
maintain higher levels of contact and involvement with their
children after divorce.
Mean levels of reported coparenting conflict were somewhat
lower among parents who mediated than litigated, but differences
between groups were not statistically significant. The failure to
find a significant difference may be partially attributable to selec-
tive attrition. High-conflict families who mediated were more
likely to remain in the study, whereas high-conflict families who
litigated were more likely to drop out of the study. It is tempting
to suggest that this implies that parents who litigated dropped out
of the study, and perhaps dropped out of their children's lives, as
a way of avoiding rather than resolving conflict with their former
spouses. Even if the failure to find differences in coparenting
conflict cannot be attributed to selective attrition, the similar levels
 BRIEF REPORTS
of conflict are noteworthy in light of the greater nonresidential
parent-child contact and parenting involvement found in the me-
diation group. Presumably, there are more opportunities for copa-
renting conflict when both parents remain involved in postdivorce
parenting (as occurred in the mediation group), but the mediation
parents nevertheless reported somewhat less conflict than did the
litigation parents.
Families who mediated made significantly more changes in their
children's living circumstances between Time 1 and Time 3 than
did families who litigated. However, the average number of
changes in the mediation group was not large—1.4 changes in 12
years. Thus, the results may indicate that parents who mediated
were more flexible in changing living arrangements relative to
parents in the litigation group. In fact, families in this study (and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in mediation generally) were encouraged to make adjustments in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
their children's living arrangements according to the children's
changing wishes and developmental needs (Emery, 1994). Further-
more, anecdotal evidence in the present study indicated that most
changes in residence in the mediation group were made informally
between the parents. At the same time, it is troubling that a number
of families in the mediation group (18%) made four or more
changes in children's residence. Children's interests are unlikely to
be best served either by rigidity or by confusion in their postdi-
vorce living circumstances.
Residence with fathers increased over time, but there were no
differences between mediation and litigation groups in terms of
primary residence with fathers. Rather, the change between Time 1
and Time 3 seems to reflect a normative shift, where some ado-
lescents (a minority) move to live with their fathers. In fact, the
proportion of mother and father primary residence in the present
study was very similar that reported by other investigators (Mac-
coby & Mnookin, 1992).
Consistent with the 18-month follow-up, no differences between
mediation and litigation were found in reports of depressive symp-
toms or acceptance of marital termination among women or men.
Mediation is not a panacea. Perhaps a 5-hr intervention focused on
resolving a child custody dispute should not be expected to im-
prove parents" mental health 12 years later. More noteworthy were
the increased acceptance of marital termination and reports of
decreased depressive symptoms between Time 1 and Time 3 and
the fact that these changes were limited to men. It seems clear,
however, that these data do not reflect gender differences in
adjustment to divorce because both men and women reported
comparable levels of acceptance and depressive symptoms at
Time 3. Instead, the more notable decline among men likely is due
to their more intense distress at Time 1. Many more men than
women in this sample did not want their marriage to end, and, thus,
men were much more nonaccepting than women at Time 1 (Emery
et al.. 1991). As we have suggested elsewhere, in fact, many men
may have contested custody as a way of contesting the divorce
(Emery, 1994), but over time, they apparently accepted and ad-
justed to the end of their marriage.
Even 12 years after dispute settlement, this study continues to
find differences in reported satisfaction with mediation and litiga-
tion among women and men. The pattern of findings is much the
same as has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Emery, 1994), thus
only two issues deserve special note here. First, it should be made
clear that the gender differences are almost exclusively accounted
for by the very low levels of satisfaction among the men who
331
litigated and not among the women who mediated (Emery, 1994;
Emery et al., 1991). To put it simply, the present study does not
suggest that mediation disadvantages women, as much as it implies
that litigation disadvantages men. Second, it is worth noting that,
on the whole, satisfaction with both mediation and litigation de-
clined with time, especially among men. Perhaps both legal inter-
ventions in child custody promise more than they can deliver over
the long course of postdivorce childrearing.
As in earlier reports, it is essential to raise questions about the
internal and external validity of the present research. In the present
long-term follow-up study, the internal validity of the experimental
design was threatened by selective attrition from mediation versus
litigation. Some evidence was found for differential attrition be-
tween groups, but the pattern of selective attrition generally
worked against the guiding hypothesis that mediation would lead
to long-term benefits relative to litigation. Most notably, evidence
indicated that high-conflict nonresidential parents dropped out of
the litigation sample, but they remained in the mediation sample.
It is still possible that the study's internal validity was compro-
mised by some unmeasured variable. However, the random assign-
ment to alternative methods of dispute resolution in the real
world—and the causal implications that flow from this design
strength—remain a notable strength of this study. At the same
time, it must be clearly acknowledged that external validity of the
study can be challenged for various reasons. The present research
represents one study of one relatively small sample in one court at
one point in time. The results may not generalize to mediation or
litigation in other courts, especially given rapid changes in custody
laws and practices, as well as important variations in the law across
states. The results also may not generalize to other samples,
particularly more affluent ones, although it should be noted that the
present study is one of few to focus on divorce among low income
families.
References
Ahrons. C. R. (1981). The continuing coparental relationship between
divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatr\, 51, 415-428.
Ahrons, C. R. (1983). Predictors of paternal involvement postdivorce:
Mothers' and fathers' perceptions. Journal of Divorce, 6. 55-69.
Beck. A. T., Steer. R. A.. & Garbin. M. (1988). Psychometric properties of
the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin-
ical Psychology Review, 8, 77-100.
Benjamin. M.. & Irving. H. H. (1995). Research in family mediation:
Review and implications. Mediation Quarterly. 13, 53-82.
Bickerdike. A. J. (1998). Conflict resolution in divorce mediation: The
impact of the divorce adjustment process and negotiation behaviour on
mediation outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. La Trobe Uni-
versity. Australia.
Braver. S. H.. Wolchik. S. A.. Sandier. I. N., Fogas, B. S.. & Zvetina. D.
(1991). Frequency of visitation by divorced fathers: Differences in
reports by fathers and mothers. American Journal of Onhopsvchia-
try, 61, 448-454.
Dillon. P.. & Emery. R. E. (1996). Long-term effects of divorce mediation
in a field study of child custody dispute resolution. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. 66. 131-140.
Elrod. L. A.. & Spector. R. G. (1997). A review of the year in family law:
Of welfare reform, child support, and relocation. Famil\ Lav,- Quar-
terly, 30, 765-834.
Emery. R. E. (1994). Renegotiating relationships: Divorce, child custod\,
and mediation. New York: Guilford.
 332 BRIEF REPORTS
Emery. R. E. (1995). Divorce mediation: Negotiating agreements and
renegotiating relationships. Family Relations, 44. 377-383.
Emery. R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children's adjustment (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Emery. R. E., Kitzmann. K. M.. & Waldron, M. (1999). Psychological
interventions for separated and divorced families. In E. Mavis Hether-
ington (Ed.). Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A
risk and resiliency- perspective (pp. 323-344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Emery. R. E., Laumann-Billings. L., Sbarra, D. A., & Waldron, M. C.
(2001). A randomized trial of child custody mediation and litigation:
Effects on family relationships and children's psychological well-being.
Manuscript in preparation.
Emery. R. E., Matthews. S. G., & Kitzmann, K. (1994). Child custody
mediation and litigation: Parents' satisfaction and functioning a year
after settlement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,
124-129.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Emery. R. E., Matthews. S. G., & Wyer, M. M. (1991). Child custody
mediation and litigation: Further evidence on the differing views of
mothers and fathers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,
410-418.
Emery. R. E., & Wyer, M. M. (1987a). Child custody mediation and
litigation: An experimental evaluation of the experience of parents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 179-186.
Emery, R. E., & Wyer, M. M. (1987b). Divorce mediation. American
Psychologist, 42, 472-480.
Grille. T. (1991). The mediation alternative: Process dangers for women.
Yale Law Journal. 100, 1545-1610.
Grych, J., & Fincham, F. (1992). Intervention for children of divorce:
Toward greater integration of research and action. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 111, 434-454.
Hendricks. C. L. (1993-1994). The trend toward mandatory mediation in
custody and visitation disputes of minor children: An overview. Journal
of Family Law, 32, 491-510.
Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What
matters? What does not? Five perspectives on the association between
marital transitions and children's adjustment. American Psycholo-
gist. 53. 167-184.
Irving, H. H., & Benjamin, M. (1995). Family mediation: Contemporary
issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelly, J. B. (1989). Mediated and adversarial divorce: Respondents' per-
ceptions of their processes and outcomes. Mediation Quarterly, 24,
71-88.
Kelly, J. B. (1996). A decade of divorce mediation research: Some answers
and questions. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34, 373-385.
Kelly, J. B., & Duryee, M. A. (1992). Women's and men's views of
mediation in voluntary and mandatory mediation settings. Family and
Conciliation Courts Review, 30, 34-49.
Kendall, P. C., Hollon, S. D.. Beck, A. T., Hammen, C. L., & Ingram. R. E.
(1987). Issues and recommendations regarding use of the Beck Depres-
sion Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289-299.
Kendall, P. C., & Sugarman, A. (1997). Attrition in the treatment of
childhood anxiety disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 65, 883-888.
Kitson, G. C. (1982). Attachment to the spouse in divorce: A scale and its
application. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 379-391.
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, 150-157.
Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and
legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Seltzer, J. A. (1991). Relationships between fathers and children who live
apart: The father's role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 53, 79-101.
Shaw, D. S., & Emery, R. E. (1987). Parental confict and the adjustment of
school age children whose parents have separated. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 15, 269-281.
Sullivan, B. F., Schwebel, A., Lind, J. S., & Shimberg, J. (1997). Parties'
evaluations of their relationships with their mediators and accomplish-
ments in a court-connected mediation program. Family and Conciliation
Courts Review, 35, 405-417.
Received September 25, 1999
Revision received September 14, 2000
Accepted September 21, 2000 •