Mediator and Survivor Perspectives on Screening for

Intimate Partner Abuse

Shereen G. Bingham

Kerry L. Beldin

Laura Dendinger

This study illuminates how family mediators and domestic violence sur­vivors in Nebraska perceive the process used to screen parents for inti­mate partner abuse prior to parenting plan mediation. In-depth interviews and a focus group discussion were conducted and qualita­tively analyzed to compare the mediators' and survivors' perspectives and suggest what the mediators might learn about screening from the stand­point of the survivors. Both similarities and diff erences in perspective emerged, with mediators less attentive than survivors to several concerns that appear central to screening from the survivors' standpoint. Implica­tions for the screening practices of family mediators are discussed.

Mediation has grown rapidly since it was introduced to the American legal landscape in the 1970s, and now is more prevalent than other approaches to resolving family disputes (Emery, Sbarra, and Grover 2005; Salem 2009). Some have even suggested that for most family law cases, such as those involving child custody conflicts, mediation has become the norm (Landrum 2011). Yet as the use of mediation for these cases has expanded, with mediation now mandatory or sanctioned as an alternative to litigation by statute or court rule in almost every state (Murphy and Rubinson 2005), there is ongoing concern and debate about the circum­stances under which this practice can be effective and appropriate with families who have experienced intimate partner abuse (Landrum 2011; Ver Steegh 2003).

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, Spring 2014

© Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Conflict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21090

The term intimate partner abuse (IPA) is used in the literature for what historically has been called domestic violence. Legal definitions and crim­inal charges related to IPA vary by location but typically relate to physical and sexual abuse (Healey, Smith, with O'Sullivan 1998). From decades of work with IPA survivors and from research, we know that IPA encom­passes more than acts that may lead to physical injury—controlling and abusive behaviors that tend to accompany them, such as economic and emotional abuse and intimidation (Pence and Paymar 1993). Stark (2007) suggests that by focusing on physical abuse, we miss the context of abuse experiences—coercive control that frames violence and may be so limiting to a victim's rights and activities that physical or sexual abuse may seldom be necessary. Other researchers contend that not all IPA involves coercive control and differentiate “coercive controlling” violence from other categories, including “situational couple violence” (which arises as interpersonal conflicts escalate), “separation-instigated violence” (which occurs at the time of separation), and “violent resistance” (a reaction to coercive controlling violence) (Kelly and Johnson 2008, 478—79). This work suggests that parents experiencing different forms of IPA may have divergent needs and should be treated accordingly by service providers (Jaffe et al. 2008).

The literature reflects a wide range in IPA prevalence within families participating in mediation (Beck, Walsh, and Weston 2009). Studies have found that depending on the types of abuse measured, IPA is present in the relationships of at least a third (Beck and others 2009) and as many as 90 percent of parties participating in mediation to address custody and parenting issues (Beck et al. 2011). With such likelihood that couples entering mediation may have experienced IPA in some form, screening is embraced as fundamental in identifying cases in which mediation would likely be uncomfortable, ineffective, or unsafe (Clemants and Gross 2007).

The limited research on IPA screening for family mediation has identi­fied obstacles to effective screening, such as victims' reluctance to disclose abuse (Frederick 2008), disagreements about best screening practices (Beck and others 2011), and insufficient training for mediators (Clemants and Gross 2007). In light of these findings, it appears that screening for IPA, although widely viewed as crucial for family mediation, is a challenging responsibility. However, despite the challenge, the experiences of media­tors who conduct screening have seldom been given a voice in the litera­ture. Even more important, IPA survivors have rarely had opportunities to provide their perspective. To address these concerns, this study explores IPA screening from the perspectives of mediators who conduct screening and IPA survivors who have developed a critical standpoint on IPA.

Mediation, Intimate Partner Abuse, and Screening

Most concerns about child custody mediation and IPA focus on safety and whether a survivor's interests can be met within the mediation context. It is known that risk of harm to physical safety may increase for IPA victims and their children after separating from the perpetrator (Clemants and Gross 2007; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000), and it is suggested that the best screening would incorporate survival strategies and confidential referrals (Frederick 2008). If screeners use ineffective or inappropriate processes, they might be contributing to harm in addition to missing opportunities to plan for safety and provide appropriate referrals. There are concerns that family court staff such as mediators, through minimizing, dismissive com­ments, or judgmental demeanors during interactions, may contribute to secondary victimization of IPA victims (Rivera, Sullivan, and Zeoli 2012).

Another important concern that would render mediation ineffective if it is present is the inability of IPA victims to negotiate freely and advocate for their and their children's interests. Inequality that exists in abusive rela­tionships has been identified as an obstacle to successful mediation, with mediation opponents suggesting that the individual wielding power, abuse, and coercion will continue to do so in mediation, silencing the other's voice in the process. Abusers' controlling tactics may go undetected, under­mining victims' ability to negotiate and jeopardizing safety (Hart 1990; Rivera et al. 2012).

Mediation proponents suggest that IPA victims “should have the opportunity to make an informed choice about which divorce process . . . will best meet the needs of their families” (Ver Steegh 2003, 2). In addi­tion, they note that IPA cases differ (Clemants and Gross 2007; Ver Steegh and Dalton 2008) and that with adequate screening and training and by providing alternatives and resources, safety issues may be addressed.

Thus far, there has been limited research on screening for IPA in medi­ation, particularly in comparison to IPA screening done in other profes­sional areas, such as health care (Wathen and MacMillan 2003). Although the research is still developing, it nevertheless can help inform practice. As with other professionals who do screening, for mediators there are identifi­able obstacles to accurate screening procedures. It is generally acknowl­edged that IPA victims may be reticent to disclose abuse and may even fear the consequences of disclosure (and logically so, considering the context of coercive control) (Landrum 2011; Varcoe and Irwin 2004). It is also well established that individuals who use controlling and abusive tactics typi­cally minimize their abuse and frame it in a manner that deflects responsi­bility onto others (Pence and Paymar 1993).

The method or tool by which mediators screen for IPA is central to their determination of the best course of action for each party and whether a couple should be in mediation or an alternative to resolve their issues (Frederick 2008). Although there is still debate about the most appropriate and effective screening strategies (Beck et al. 2011), the most common in mediation appear to be a semistructured interview, written questionnaire, or combination of the two (Landrum 2011; Ver Steegh 2003).

Within the context of IPA, effective screening would include strategies that enable victims to feel safe enough to disclose abuse experiences so the mediator may make appropriate determinations to help. Research indi­cates that when IPA victims are asked directly about abuse, are provided safety from the abuser and institutional control, and are asked by a trust­worthy person, they are much more likely to choose to disclose their abuse during screening (Spangaro, Zwi, and Poulos 2011). Accordingly, media­tors may prefer to use interviews because of the opportunity they provide for rapport building with clients (Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, and Apple­gate 2010). However, some research has shown that when relying on semi­structured interviews, mediators miss a significant amount of IPA that gets identified on standardized, behaviorally specific questionnaires (Ballard et al. 2011). Beck and others (2011) found that when mediators used semi­structured interviews, about a third of the couples they identified as not having IPA reported on a questionnaire as having experienced threatened or escalated violence or sexual intimidation, coercion, or assault. A study of a law school clinic found that although the director and mediators were confident they were detecting IPA through review of court files and inter­views among other methods, they missed about 50 percent of cases detected by a questionnaire (Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 2010).

Because of such evidence, there is support for using standardized, behaviorally specific, systematically interpreted questionnaires that effec­tively elicit answers that help detect abuse (see Clemants and Gross 2007; Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 2010). However, until research is definitive about which method better identifies IPA in mediation screening, media­tors are advised to use both face-to-face interviews and written question­naires (Beck et al. 2011; Landrum 2011). Research indicates that most mediators are likely falling short: Clemants and Gross (2007) found that only 37 percent of the ninety-four community mediation centers they sur­veyed used formal screening methods. However, 69 percent of the centers did use some type of IPA screening, and other estimates hover around 80 percent (Pearson 1997; Ver Steegh 2003).

Even when extensive interviews and sophisticated tools are used in screen­ing, the importance of a mediator's training on IPA cannot be overstated (Beck et al. 2011). While there may be little to no IPA training required in some states, 70 percent of mediators report regularly attending training on IPA issues (Pearson 1997; Ver Steegh 2003). Clemants and Gross (2007) found that while 60 percent of community mediation centers offered IPA training to their staff, only 36 percent indicated the training was mandatory.

When screening indicates a parent is uncomfortable or issues related to IPA might present problems in mediation, there is wide consensus that the couple should be directed to an alternative process, special accommoda­tions should be made, or both. Safety measures are outlined in the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, which include establishing “appropriate security arrangements,” meeting with parties sep­arately, allowing parties to bring support persons to sessions, ending ses­sions, and making referrals to address safety concerns (“Model Standards” 2001). Many states provide at least some of these accommodations or require that the case be referred out of mediation if a history of IPA has been identified (American Bar Association 2008).

While there is much in the literature about the pros and cons of family mediation related to IPA, there is little research, quantitative or qualitative, that highlights how mediators are grappling with screening issues. Media­tors' experiences need further exploration (Stoner, Perry, and Marcum 2011) so we can better understand this process, particularly since IPA screening is mandatory in many states. Therefore, this study seeks to explore IPA screening from the perspective of mediators who have been appointed to conduct it.

Although mediators' views and experiences are needed to illuminate the screening process, another important voice to hear is that of IPA survi­vors. Feminist standpoint theory suggests that giving voice to those who are less powerful or marginalized, such as victims of IPA (Van Wormer 2009), may enlighten and balance the perspective of mediators. When survivors reflect on power relations and “[engage] in the struggle required to con­struct an oppositional stance” (Wood 2013, 59), they achieve a standpoint from which the most valuable insights on screening may emerge.

The purpose of the study explored in this article was to seek under­standing of how family mediators describe and make sense of their screen­ing experiences with parents, particularly victims of IPA, and to elucidate how mediators' perspectives might be informed by meanings that IPA sur­vivors associate with screening and the screening tool. The context for our inquiry is the state of Nebraska and its amended Parenting Act, which makes both mediation and screening for IPA mandatory for many divorc­ing and separating parents who reside in the state.

Case Background: Screening and Parenting Plan Mediation
in Nebraska

When the Nebraska Parenting Act was enacted in 1994, the state began requiring IPA screening for divorcing and separating parents and offering voluntary mediation for those without violence in their relationship. As amended in 2008, the Parenting Act established mandatory mediation or an approved alternative statewide for parents who are unable to produce a par­enting plan on their own or with the assistance of attorneys. A screening tool, approved in 2007, was developed for mediators to use in these cases. Under the Parenting Act, parents must attend an individual private session during which a mediator orients them to mediation and screens for domes­tic intimate partner abuse, unresolved parental conflict, child abuse or neglect, and other forms of intimidation and coercion that make mediation inappropriate for families. Based on the screening interview, mediators are expected to identify the dispute resolution process that will best help parents safely develop a parenting plan that meets the best interests of the children.

The primary processes to which Nebraska mediators refer parents are mediation and specialized alternative dispute resolution (SADR); however, parents are exempted if neither is deemed safe and appropriate, and they may instead use court trial or attorney settlement. SADR, a “nonjudicial intervention in high conflict or domestic intimate partner abuse cases,” requires an approved, specially trained SADR mediator who “facilitates voluntary mutual development of and agreement to a structured parenting plan, provisions for safety, a transition plan, or other related resolution between the parties” (Parenting Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2922). Parents in SADR do not meet together and may meet with mediators on different days and at different locations. Provisions are often made to prevent par­ents from seeing or hearing each other, and an attorney or other support person may attend sessions.

The approved tool, the Nebraska Mediation Screening Tool (2007), was developed through collaboration by representatives from various profes­sions, including IPA victims' and children's advocacy groups, the Family Law Bar, family mediators, and court professionals. The tool is based on the power and control wheel (Duluth Abuse Intervention Project n.d.), which visually represents IPA and the various abusive tactics most commonly asso­ciated with it. Most questions in the tool are organized into categories matching the domains of abuse set out in the wheel. Through a series of primarily closed-ended questions, the tool is designed to help mediators ask parents if the other parent has engaged in the specific behaviors indicated, including coercion, threats, isolation, using children, economic abuse, emo­tional abuse, gender-based privilege, intimidation, physical abuse, sexual abuse, minimizing, denying, and blaming. Mediators are instructed to “ask the party to describe further” if the answer to any question is yes. In addi­tion, the tool has questions about restraining and protection orders, other ongoing legal actions, and general fear and safety concerns such as drug or alcohol use and mental instability. Questions related to the presence, or risk, of child maltreatment, which mediators are mandated to report, are also included. The tool's assessment page states that SADR should be used if a party refuses to or has doubts about meeting face-to-face with the other parent or if a legal order precludes it. Beyond these criteria, mediators are empowered to determine if the party is appropriate for mediation, SADR, or neither process based on “the responses to the screening process.”

Screening in Nebraska is conducted by mediators who have received at least sixty hours of training in basic and family mediation, three hours of training in screening, and eight credits of biennial continuing mediator education which must include at least two credits on IPA. Many of the mediators have also received twenty-four hours of SADR training.

Method

The study used a qualitative, interpretive approach, which assumes there are multiple realities and focuses on meanings people ascribe to their world (Baxter and Babbie 2004). This approach does not seek to generalize results to populations but rather to provide rich, in-depth, complex understand­ing of specific phenomena from multiple perspectives in particular con­texts (Creswell 2013; Lindlof and Taylor, 2011). We therefore employed purposeful sampling rather than random sampling, in-depth interviews and a focus group, and an inductive method of analysis.

Mediator Interviews

Interview participants were practicing family mediators, approved to pro­vide parenting plan mediation by Nebraska's Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR). Names and e-mail addresses of all approved mediators were obtained from ODR; four who declined participation or had invalid addresses were removed from the list. We e-mailed the remaining eighty- five mediators an invitation to be interviewed about the state's screening process, informed consent information, and a request to complete a quan­titative survey not part of the present study. Sixty-five (76.6 percent) of the mediators responded to the survey. For the qualitative interviews in this study, however, we sought a smaller, purposeful sample of information-rich participants using “maximum variation” and “criterion” sampling proce­dures (Creswell 2013, 156-58). Specifically, we sought participants who represented the state's major regions and different levels of mediation expe­rience, who had conducted multiple IPA screening sessions with parents and would inform a rich understanding of our area of interest. Ten of eleven mediators who volunteered to be interviewed satisfied these inclu­sion criteria.

To assess whether additional sampling was needed, we conducted and analyzed the ten interviews and applied the standard of “theoretical satura­tion” (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003, 20). That is, data collection ceased based on our assessment that the interviews showed considerable depth and the last two interviews added little new information that was of sig­nificance to the emerging concepts (Lindlof and Taylor 2011). In the sam­ple were seven women and three men; all were non-Hispanic white except for a Latina woman; their ages averaged fifty-five and ranged from forty­seven to sixty-three; they had served as family mediators for one to twenty- five years (M = 7.8; Md = 5); they had conducted between 5 and 250 screening sessions with parents (M = 107; Md = 88); and all but one mediator had received SADR training.

Interviews were conducted face-to-face or by telephone using a respon­sive interviewing approach, which reflects the interpretive, naturalistic phi­losophy (Rubin and Rubin 2005). We began with open-ended questions, asked follow-up and unplanned questions to encourage elaboration, and related to the mediators as conversational partners. We asked them to describe their goals for the individual private sessions, the process of screen­ing, how they make assessments and decisions, their relationship with cli­ents, experiences with successful and difficult cases, and their perceptions of the screening tool and training received. We ended with demographic questions to permit description of the sample. Interview length ranged from thirty to sixty minutes, averaging forty-five minutes. We recorded the interviews and transcribed them verbatim to produce 138 single-spaced pages of text.

Survivors' Focus Group

The focus group participants were eight women who identified as IPA sur­vivors and had permanently separated from their abusive partner. Their ages ranged from 35 to 56 (M = 42.12). Six identified racially/ethnically as Caucasian or white, one as Hispanic, and one as multiethnic.

It was important to the study for the participants to have developed a critical standpoint on the experience of being in abuse, and we specifically sought survivors who had not been through the mediation screening pro­cess we were investigating. These criteria for inclusion and exclusion intended to ensure the participants would assess the screening tool from their standpoint as survivors rather than as recent mediation participants. Accordingly, all participants were residents of Nebraska and recruited with assistance from a local nonprofit organization that supports domestic vio­lence victims and agencies. The organization's staff identified prospective participants in the community who had lived through IPA, moved past that stage of their lives, regained a solid sense of self, and participated in volunteer activities to raise community awareness of IPA. None of the par­ticipants was employed by the organization or had served as a victim's advocate. Survivors who expressed interest received our letter of invitation and informed consent form, discussion questions, and the Nebraska Medi­ation Screening Tool.

The focus group met on the premises of the nonprofit organization. Before discussion began, we obtained informed consent; distributed a short demographic questionnaire; shared background on mediation, SADR, and the screening tool; and answered questions. The discussion lasted seventy-five minutes and was facilitated by the second author. Our questions were open-ended and asked participants to react to the screening tool, assess its strengths and weaknesses, express concerns about its use, and provide advice to improve screening. Primary questions were supplemented by probing follow-up questions to encourage participants to elaborate. The women interacted openly, built on one another's ideas, and asked questions of each other and us. The discussion was recorded and transcribed using pseudonyms to produce thirty-six single-spaced pages of text.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the transcripts using Auerbach and Silverstein's (2003) induc­tive approach, beginning with the mediators' interviews and then the sur­vivors' focus group. Following Auerbach and Silverstein's rigorous guidelines, we read the transcripts closely numerous times before identify­ing the segments of text that were relevant to the purpose of our research. Next we compared each segment of relevant text to every other segment to identify repeating ideas within and across the transcripts, collapsing, divid­ing, or modifying the categories as needed. Third, we grouped the repeating ideas into themes that we labeled based on their common meanings and retained repeating ideas as subthemes. Finally, we compared the themes of the mediators and survivors to garner what the prior group might learn from the latter. At each step of this lengthy process, we discussed our codes in detail, worked through differences, returned to the transcripts to recheck interpretations, and came to mutual agreement.

We approached data analysis as interpretive researchers, recognizing that our identities, knowledge, and experiences would influence our inter­pretations (Creswell 2013). The first author is a professor of communica­tion, parenting plan mediator, and SADR facilitator. The second author is an assistant professor of social work and a licensed mental health prac­titioner who has worked extensively with the advocacy community. The third author is a business and labor law professor who serves on the board of directors of a domestic violence crisis intervention agency. Our differ­ences enabled us to make sense of the data from multiple perspectives, and this form of triangulation (Creswell 2013) strengthened our interpre­tations and conclusions. We also used peer review and member checking as validation strategies (Creswell 2013). We met with a domestic violence educator and victims' advocate who read a narrative of our focus group themes and commented on their credibility. In addition, an interview participant offered comments on our themes and descriptions. Each of these individuals brought insights that we incorporated into our analysis and results.

Results

Analysis of the transcripts identified two sets of themes for the mediators and survivors. These provide a rich understanding of screening from the mediators' and survivors' perspectives.

Mediator Perspectives

Four major themes, with nine subthemes, emerged from our analysis of the mediator interviews: accomplishing the purpose of screening, using the screening tool, building rapport with the parties, and reflecting on the tool and training.

Mediator Theme 1: Accomplishing the Purpose of Screening. The medi­ators spoke at length about their responsibility to identify the dispute reso­lution process that is most appropriate for the parents they screen. To accomplish this purpose, they worked to assess the parties' relationship while striving to ensure safety.

• Determining the appropriate process. All the mediators indicated that identifying which process the parents should use to develop a parenting plan, whether mediation, SADR, or another process, is a key purpose of the individual private session. It was clear that the interviewees favored mediation if there were no indications that it would be inappropriate or unsafe. The decision about process was described as clear-cut in some cases, easily made based on parties' responses to questions. At the other end of the spectrum were cases for which the determination was not at all straightforward, and it was helpful to consult with colleagues. According to one mediator, “[If] it becomes iffy or confusing or a little unsure, then we process it with the director here and we decide how to pursue the case.”

• Making an assessment. In identifying the appropriate process, media­tors told of collecting information that enables them to assess what is happening in the family, whether IPA has ever been present, and how that could influence the parties' ability to participate in mediation. Several mediators described looking for verbal and nonverbal red flags that indicate the need to probe further into a response. The mediators invariably assessed any history or presence of power, control, co­ercion, or violence as an infringement or obstacle in a party's ability to negotiate freely and comfortably with the other parent. As one mediator said, “When anybody feels that there's a thumb on them for any reason . . . I tell them every time, the most important thing about determining process is to know whether you can make decisions about your children in the mediation process.”

• Keeping the parties safe. Safety merited much consideration by the mediators, and the need to err on the side of caution was asserted repeatedly. It was evident that they viewed SADR as necessary for families in which there was a protection order, a party expressed concerns or fears about negotiating or being in a room with the other parent, or there was potential for harm to a party if mediation were pursued. These concerns about safety went beyond simply deter­mining whether SADR was the appropriate approach; the mediators expressed a need to establish a safe environment and safety plans for the SADR process so that “victims are not revictimized.” Several mediators' responses also reflected the belief that descriptions of abuse should be given credence over denials of abuse, that women are more likely than men to be IPA victims, and therefore that mothers should be interviewed before fathers in order to maintain safety. One medi­ator explained, “We always do it the female first . . . because 90 percent of the time, females are victims of domestic violence. . . . [And] just for the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to believe her.”

Mediator Th eme 2: Using the Screening Tool. When describing their use of the screening tool, the mediators shared different perceptions of the value of its pointed questions and discordant beliefs about how precisely the tool should be followed.

• Concerns about asking for details. Mediators recognized that having to answer questions about one's abusive relationship can be difficult, and several expressed concerns about retraumatizing victims or making them feel uncomfortable, judged, sad, or embarrassed. For some mediators, direct, closed-ended questions that inquire about details of abuse are harmful and unnecessary for screening unless the victim wants to disclose them. Other mediators suggested that gathering specifics of abuse is necessary because they can inform a mediator's approach to a SADR case. Some emphasized the potential for IPA victims to benefit from sharing details, as one mediator explained: “It's the first time anyone has ever said to them, ‘What you are expe­riencing is domestic violence. . . .' I can't even tell you how many times I've had that person say to me, ‘thank you.'” Overall, there was a sense that “reliving the story can . . . be painful for certain cases, and for others it can be therapeutic.”

• Adapting the process to the party. All the mediators commented on the importance of adjusting screening based on the needs and preferences of the party with whom they are working. As one mediator said, “Sometimes people prefer more matter of fact, boom boom boom, and some people you get a sense you need to be . . . a little more empathic.” Ironically, however, each mediator used a fairly fixed amount of flexibility with the screening tool. For some it was impor­tant to follow the tool closely, “section by section, question by ques­tion,” but skip a question if the party already answered it. Others described departing further from the tool, using it to ensure coverage of the questions, but in a sequence that depends on how a party just responded and omitting or modifying questions that seem irrelevant or redundant. A third subgroup, most of whom reported extensive experience with screening, discussed using a free-flowing, responsive approach that involves asking broad, open-ended questions and “going with the flow.” As one of these mediators explained, “You need to make sure you cover all your bases of the screening tool, but when I do a screening process with somebody that screening tool is under­neath my legal pad.”

Some mediators maintained that screening should cease once a party answers definitively that the relationship is not abusive, whereas others stressed the importance of covering all categories on the tool. Knowledge that victims may be reluctant to disclose abuse was in tension with con­cerns about annoying nonvictims, as one mediator commented: “[If] a woman goes, ‘Well, I know what you're getting at, but this is nothing . . . absolutely no violence in our relationship.' And I just feel kind of silly, ‘Has he ever stalked you,' you know what I mean?”

Mediator Th eme 3: Building Rapport with the Parties. The mediators uniformly stressed the importance of helping parties feel comfortable. This entailed establishing rapport and informing them about what to expect:

• Establishing rapport. Mediators discussed the need to build rapport and trust with parties during the individual private session to create an atmosphere that is “comfortable and safe” for honest disclosure. They described listening, being nonjudgmental, and making efforts “to convey honesty and interest and care and compassion and empathy.” One mediator offered, “You've gotta make sure that you show them you're not making judgments on them and what they've lived through . . . show them you're not going to react, overreact or underreact to what they say.” Several mediators emphasized the essen­tial role of nonverbal communication, such as eye contact and voice inflection, to demonstrate genuine engagement instead of reading from the tool or “going through the motions on checking things off.”

• Providing information. Most mediators described informing each party about the screening process as an essential component of building rapport. They mentioned explaining the confidentiality of sessions, informing that the other parent would be asked similar questions, making an overall effort to be transparent about “what's gonna happen and why we do the assessments and what mediation is all about,” and encouraging the party to ask questions. Many media­tors also said they inform the parent during screening that they are neutral and impartial, a feature inherent in their third-party role. They spoke of explaining “that it's safe to tell the truth . . . but that I'm still going to be neutral” and “we are not here to take sides.”

Mediator Th eme 4: Refl ecting on the Tool and Training. In reflecting on the screening process, the mediators offered an assessment of the tool's strengths and weaknesses and evaluated the training they received.

• Th e tool as a starting place. Mediators identified features of the screening tool that they saw as useful, particularly its categories and open-ended questions. Several mediators described it as comprehen­sive, covering the many forms of IPA. The tool's grounding in the power and control wheel was specifically praised as “a great way to get at what we need to get at.” Several mediators, however, were critical of the tool's length, organization, or specific questions. Some were concerned that the early placement of closed-ended questions makes it difficult to obtain honest answers, particularly about feeling in danger. Open-ended questions were preferred because they “allow for the client to tell you, by themselves, what was their relationship with the [other] parent.” The tool's final assessment page was also of concern to a few mediators, who described it as simultaneously too “cut and dried” and “vague.” As one mediator stated, “If you don't quite know what to do with it, then [it says] just give it SADR . . . and then you're sure to be safe.” Overall, nearly every mediator saw the screening tool as having value, as expressed by this interviewee: “When at first I saw it . . . I could not see myself doing it, but as soon as I began to use it . . . I knew it was going to be helpful and I knew it was going to be an aid to my work.” Yet the mediators described the screening process as requiring much more than using the tool. One mediator stated, “It's a starting place I guess, would be one way to look at it.”

• Importance of training and experience. Mediators uniformly recognized the seriousness of their task and understood the central role of training, experience, and supervised practice. One highly experienced medi­ator disclosed, “I would be mortified if I really had missed something and it did result in, well, some kind of a tragedy.” Others questioned the ability of novice mediators to conduct screening, and the view that skillful screening “requires a lot of training, a lot of doing it, a lot of times” was broadly shared. Accordingly, some less experienced mediators commented that their training in screening was insuffi­cient, and several mediators called for more ongoing training. One mediator reflected, “I think this [screening] is kind of the bedrock, the entry point into this whole mediation process, so I think it needs to be emphasized a little bit more.”

Survivor Perspectives

Our analysis of the survivors' discussion identified four major themes (and twelve subthemes): fears about answering honestly, adapting screening to the victim, creating a safe environment, and strengthening screening.

Survivor Th eme 1: Fears about Answering Honestly. From the survivors' discussion, six obstacles emerged that may hinder mediators from obtain­ing honest answers about IPA.

• Context of abuse. Survivors discussed the dynamics and psychological effects of abusive relationships as a severe hindrance to answering screening questions. They shared how years of living in fear and being continually subjected to controlling, dishonest, threatening, intimi­dating behaviors from an abuser can cause one to lose a sense of self and reality. Such descriptions illuminate the context from which many IPA victims may be emerging or still struggling to escape at the time of screening. One survivor elaborated on this experience and the difficulty of being able to answer questions about the abuse: “You have fear, you have paranoia big time, you have anger, you have denial, you're in a state of fog a lot of the time, confusion. . . . You stop even knowing your own head. You know them, the abuser, better than you know yourself. . . . You totally lose yourself. . . . I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be difficult to have that much self-awareness.” • Lack of awareness and shame. A related concern was the inability to recognize abuse or its seriousness. One survivor commented, “Sometimes they [victims] don't realize they are in an abusive rela­tionship. Or they are in denial, they've gotten so used to it, they are ashamed of it, won't even talk about it.” Reflecting on her own situa­tion, another survivor shared that she “would have totally minimized it, not knowing.”

• Fear of losing the children. The fear that was expressed most often and passionately was of losing one's children and failing to keep them safe. Survivors were concerned that victims might not trust the mediator to keep their disclosures confidential, especially if the children had witnessed IPA. Specifically, mediators might decide to report such abuse, causing the victim to be “abused by the system” and the chil­dren to be taken away.

• Fear of repercussions from abuser. Some survivors felt victims might be too frightened to answer screening questions “because she thinks that he will find out” and bring harm to her or the children. One survivor said that she had “lived for seven years being told that if I ever told, if I showed anyone my face or my bruises . . . that the kids would be his and there would be nothing that I could do to prevent it.” Fear of the abuser's anger and reactions was intensified by knowledge that the abuser would also be screened: “What if he asked me about how I answered the questions? . . . He's gonna wanna know everything I said.”

• Retraumatization. Survivors also were concerned that the screening process itself could retraumatize victims, and some said they would have felt traumatized themselves. As one survivor said, “The situation that I was in, if I would have been forced by the courts to go to a mediator and had to . . . answer these questions, I think it would have retraumatized me all over again.” Some survivors cautioned that screening should stop once a client is identified as a victim to avoid putting the person “though all the trauma of all these questions.” One woman said the possibility of trauma had still not subsided for her: “Even now, being six years out, just reading these questions I'm like on the verge of tears every time I read through them.”

• Fear of being judged. Finally, survivors asserted that screening might be experienced as judgment or blame. There was concern that victims would be wary of being perceived as “a bad person” for disclosing IPA or even for revealing reluctance to talk about the relationship. One survivor suggested, “If I say yes [I have hesitations], then they're going to ask me why, what's going on, what are you trying to hide?”

Survivor Th eme 2: Adapting Screening to the Victim. The survivors asserted that mediators may need to ask direct questions about abuse even though there is risk of retraumatizing victims. They advised assessing the appropriateness of such questions for each victim and adjusting the screen­ing process accordingly:

• Need for direct questions. Most survivors expressed concerns specifi­cally about the use of direct questions on the tool. One was concerned that these questions could make screening “seem like an interroga­tion,” and another cautioned that victims might “just shut down.” At the same time, several survivors contended that “direct, to-the-point” questions are useful, in part because they bring out details of abuse. One survivor explained, “You ask, ‘Did he kick you, did he punch you, did he trip you, did he throw you down?' It's exactly to the point. . . . So you are able to recognize what exactly happened.” The survivors agreed that direct questions can be traumatizing, but some felt they can also be empowering, as this woman's comment illustrates: “I'm picturing myself in one situation running out the back door with my son, him wearing my shoes, jumping the fence. . . . It does take me back and make me cry and stuff. But these questions would also help me to say, ‘He did do that and that's not my fault. . . . He was coward enough to beat me. . . . That's on him.'” Mediation was described as perhaps “the safe place for a victim to be asked these harsh questions, and in this manner before court, so that she realizes . . . this is gonna stop right now.” Direct questions were also valued for their ability to reveal abuse that would otherwise go undetected and to help media­tors “find out what level of threat the abuser is” to determine if the victim and children need protection.

• Adapting to the individual. The survivors concluded that the appropri­ateness of asking direct questions is likely to vary among victims depending on their experiences, state of mind, and state of transition from the abusive relationship. Illustrating this view was a survivor who said, “[It] depends on their readiness, depends on their level of abuse, the level of the trauma, the level of what they have been through, what they're going through.” And because every victim, abusive rela­tionship, and situation is different, the survivors asserted that screening should be conducted differently depending on the victim. Accordingly, when working with victims for whom direct questions would be upsetting, survivors suggested beginning “more gently.” One survivor explained, “Some people . . . need open-ended questions that . . . build a little trust through there. Some people would like it very direct that are just at that point, have regained some type of control in the mind.” Indirect and open-ended questions were seen as less intimi­dating yet still able to “completely show an expert, who's trained, that there's a control relationship, there's an abuse relationship.” Mediators were advised, then, to assess each victim to determine whether direct questions will be beneficial; and if not, to use indirect questions and gradually introduce direct ones to bring out more details.

Survivor Th eme 3: Creating a Safe Environment. The survivors saw creat­ing a safe environment for screening as crucial. This required establishing rapport and making counseling and shelter immediately accessible to victims:

• Establishing rapport. Because the survivors perceived screening as intimidating and potentially traumatizing, the quality of the screening environment emerged as a central concern. As one survivor stated, “You have to break through that wall of fear to get these answered honestly.” Establishing “therapeutic rapport” and trust with victims prior to screening were identified repeatedly as a way for mediators to help victims feel as safe as possible. Providing clients with information was also stressed, such as by indicating how disclosure will be used and whether both parents will be asked the same questions. Survivors also identified genuine communication and being honest, gentle, sympathetic, and nonjudgmental as helpful in fostering rapport and encouraging honest disclosure. One survivor cautioned that if victims “see a mechanical person in front of them reading out of a textbook, then like everybody said they're not gonna answer nothin' honestly. But if they see it in your eyes and they see that . . . you're speaking to them from your heart, then they're gonna talk to you.”

• Need for immediate resources. While rapport was important to the survivors, they stressed even more the need to create a safe place for victims by facilitating their access to resources. Pamphlets were viewed as helpful but insufficient because, as one survivor said, “I never would have acted on a handout.” Survivors asserted throughout their discussion that mediators “definitely need to have counseling nearby . . . ready to help with this trauma.” They also advised mediators to inform each client, prior to screening, that they are ready to facilitate access to safe shelter where others “can talk to her and debrief her from what she just divulged and talked about, where [victims] can get immediate help” for themselves and their children.

Survivor Th eme 4: Strengthening Screening. The survivors offered rec­ommendations for modifying the screening tool and identified implica­tions from their discussion for mediator training:

• Improving the tool. Survivors identified aspects of the tool that they felt were appropriate and useful. Questions that were open-ended and asked how the parents interact with each other were especially praised, as were questions on the parents' current relationship, imme­diate sense of safety, and concerns about mediation. Some survivors endorsed the tool's repetitive questions, which they felt would help mediators recognize abuse that was not initially disclosed. However, survivors also offered numerous suggestions to improve the tool, hoping to help mediators assess more accurately and victims feel more willing to respond. Additions to the tool, such as early ques­tions that closely gauge a victim's movement away from the abusive relationship, were strongly recommended. The sequencing of ques­tions was also addressed, suggesting that more threatening questions, such as those about the children being in danger, should appear near the end. A few survivors also described the tool's length as “intimi­dating for an abuse victim” and recommended ways to shorten it.

• Implications for training. Because of the obstacles to honest answers, survivors contended that mediators must be experts at recognizing power and control issues based on responses of victims who may be afraid to disclose abuse or do so only indirectly. They indicated that in order to adapt screening to the victim, mediators need to be educated about dissimilarities among victims and their situations and to realize that “different people handle situations differently.” Survivors also emphasized the need for “multicultural education” to ensure mediators understand cultural influences on experiences and inter­pretations of abuse.

Comparing Mediator and Survivor Perspectives

Juxtaposing the themes for the mediators and survivors revealed five key areas of similarity and difference. While there were important commonali­ties, mediators were less attentive to several concerns that appear vital to screening from the survivors' standpoint.

Goals and Fears. Mediators and survivors approached screening with definite concerns in mind. Mediators focused on the purpose of screening, while survivors attended to the context of abuse and obstacles that may hinder victims from answering questions honestly. Though mediators noted some of these obstacles, survivors uniquely emphasized that victims may be deeply afraid that their children will be unfairly taken away or that they or their children will be harmed by the abuser as a result of participa­tion in screening.

Impact of Questioning. Both mediators and survivors were aware that screening might retraumatize victims and were concerned that victims might feel judged and reluctant to disclose abuse. In addition, there was a tension in the ways both groups viewed the tool's direct questions. While most participants saw pointedly asking victims for details of abuse as potentially harmful, others viewed specifics as important to mediators' assessment and potentially empowering to victims. This potential for dual effects led both mediators and survivors to reflect on the adaptability of screening.

Screening Adaptation. Both groups discussed the importance of adapt­ing screening to clients but expressed different understandings of what adaptation should entail. While mediators were oriented to making adjust­ments in the moment based on the party's responses, survivors saw the need to adapt to a victim's stage of transition from abuse and readiness to respond to direct questions. It appeared that for most mediators, the deci­sion to use a free-flowing screening approach or adhere more closely to the tool was grounded in their beliefs about screening as a general rule and less in a particular victim's progression away from the abusive relationship.

Rapport and Advocacy. Mediators and survivors alike recognized the importance of establishing trust and rapport with victims to create an atmosphere for disclosure. Both groups discussed how a mediator's demeanor and communication behaviors contribute to rapport and stressed the importance of providing victims with information that will help them be safe. However, survivors called for immediate access to counseling to help victims cope with the screening experience and urged mediators to be proactive in facilitating access to safe shelter. This contrasts with most mediators' description of only providing information and referrals. Media­tors' desire to stay neutral was in tension with the advocacy that survivors suggested many victims may need.

Tool and Training. Finally, both mediators and survivors saw the poten­tial to improve the screening tool and emphasized that effective screening requires expertise. However, survivors were particularly concerned with mediators assessing the client's sense of immediate safety and suggested adding questions to better gauge a victim's transition from abuse. Media­tors did not ignore these things, but focused more on how past or ongoing abuse might affect a party's future participation in mediation or SADR. While both groups discussed the importance of mediator training, survi­vors recommended education about differences among victims and their situations and how those differences might influence reactions to screening.

Discussion

This study was designed to enhance understanding of IPA screening, which many states rely on to determine which dispute resolution process separat­ing parents should use as they develop a parenting plan for their children. We focused on Nebraska, where mediators have been legally empowered to conduct screening with parents using a state-approved screening tool. With standpoint theory as a foundation, we sought to understand screening from two perspectives: the experiences of mediators who screen and the standpoint of IPA survivors who provided a critical assessment of the screening tool. Each perspective deepens understanding of screening, and comparisons between the perspectives suggest implications for consider­ation by mediators in Nebraska and perhaps other states that use similar screening practices.

Implications for Practice

Our results suggest that mediators who conduct IPA screening should be vigilant that victims may be afraid to answer screening questions. When this is the case, mediators need to negotiate the tension between obtaining information from victims about abuse experiences on one hand, and being sensitive to the emotional and physical risks of discussing the abuse on the other. This is consistent with the literature on “trauma-informed” practice, which begins with the assumption that most individuals seeking public services have trauma histories (SAMSHA 2013). Training in this approach may help mediators accomplish the purpose of screening while remaining sensitive to the risks and fears that screening may evoke.

The results also suggest that mediators may not be able to provide victims with all the services they need. The expectation that mediators remain neutral while protecting the rights and safety of both parties in mediation is espe­cially challenging when IPA is present (Landrum 2011). Both abusers and victims may perceive a breach of neutrality if a mediator actively helps a vic­tim obtain counseling or safe shelter. Partnering with IPA victim advocates may be helpful, and in some contexts advocates might be asked to conduct screening since they do not have the same neutrality requirement. But it may also be appropriate for mediators to rethink the meaning of neutrality in the context of screening; if screening causes trauma, mediators may be justified in confidentially helping victims gain immediate access to resources.

A third implication is that IPA screening might be improved by adding more tools. Survivors in this study maintained that screening should be adapted to the circumstances and state of mind of each victim, suggesting that having this information before screening begins would be useful. To address this, clients could complete a written questionnaire prior to the screening interview. This is consistent with the literature recommending a combination of face-to-face interviews and written questionnaires to enhance screening accuracy (Beck et al. 2011). The decision to leave a rela­tionship, even an abusive one, is life changing and difficult, and the “stages of change” are not always linear (Khaw and Hardesty 2007). Screening therefore could also more systematically gauge where victims may be in the process of leaving the abuse. In addition, the survivors emphasized that abusive relationships are not all alike and urged mediators to be aware of the differences. This finding appears to support screening that differentiates among types of IPA (Jaffe et al. 2008; Kelly and Johnson 2008). However, we should err on the side of caution, as mediators in our study described, until screening tools are available to accurately and unequivocally identify when patterns of coercive control are absent from violent relationships.

Finally, improvements in training mediators to screen for IPA may be needed. Based on our findings, victims' fear of their children being unfairly taken away is a possible barrier to disclosing abuse. Mediators in Nebraska and other states are required to report child maltreatment and must inform parties of this before screening, which may reinforce victims' fears. Training regarding how to discuss this topic in as nonthreatening a manner as pos­sible and respond to victims who feel they and their children are in imme­diate danger might be especially helpful. In addition, mediators may benefit from more education about how victims differ from each other in terms of culture, their abuse experiences, where they are in transition from abuse, and how they may respond to questions. Additional topics of train­ing could include why IPA victims may not be forthcoming with their abuse experiences, how IPA may be associated with a trauma response and methods to work with victims in a trauma-informed manner, and support­ing victims who have immediate need for other services and resources.

Limitations and Future Research

Our findings should be considered within the context of the study's pur­pose and limitations. First, the study was not intended to draw sweeping conclusions that are generalizable to all contexts in which mediation screening is conducted. Like most other qualitative research, this study was designed to provide detailed descriptions and in-depth understanding of a phenomenon within a specific context (Creswell 2013; Lindlof and Taylor 2011). Our findings provide insight into the process of IPA screening in Nebraska from the perspectives of the study's participants. Readers are positioned to determine the ways in which these insights are relevant to their own experiences. The extent to which our findings may inform IPA screening in other contexts should be considered and explored in future research and practice.

Second, the survivors in our study had experienced IPA and separation from an abusive partner, but they had not undergone IPA screening with a mediator. This ensured the participants would assess the screening tool from their standpoint as survivors, not as participants in mediation. Man­datory screening in Nebraska was only recently implemented, and it was important for our participants to have enough temporal distance from their separation experiences to reflect on and discuss them with reduced likeli­hood of retraumatization. As time elapses, it may be beneficial for research to include survivors who have been through the screening themselves. In addition, the participants in this study—both mediators and survivors— were predominantly white women. This reflects the race/ethnicity and gen­der of most Nebraska family mediators, but parties who are screened are more racially/ethnically diverse. Moreover, while the mediators indicated that most IPA victims they encounter are females, males may experience unique obstacles to disclosing abuse experiences and have fewer resources available for assistance (Tsui, Cheung, and Leung 2010). Future research on IPA screening from survivors' perspectives should include more diverse samples of survivors.

The literature on IPA screening in family mediation is still developing, and this study suggests additional avenues that should be pursued in future research. Questions remain about how expectations for mediator neutrality and exceptions to confidentiality affect screening accuracy and victims' well­being, what screening tools are optimal and how they should be applied, what criteria and decision-making processes are used in screening and how well they are serving their purpose, how we can effectively ensure coercive control is accurately identified, how screening decisions and dispute resolu­tion outcomes in IPA cases are associated, and what content and amount of training will best serve mediators and families with whom they work.

References

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. 2008. “Mediation in Family Law Matters Where DV Is Present.” http://www.americanbar.org /content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/docs/mediation_january_2008.auth checkdam.pdf.

Auerbach, C. F., and L. B. Silverstein. 2003. Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York: New York University Press.

Ballard, R. H., A. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. G. Applegate, and C. J. A. Beck. 2011. “Detecting Intimate Partner Violence in Family and Divorce Mediation: A Randomized Trial of Intimate Partner Violence Screening.” Psychology, Public Policy and Law 17:241—63.

Baxter, L. A., and E. Babbie. 2004. Th e Basics of Communication Research. Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Beck, C. J. A., M. E. Walsh, M. B. Mechanic, A. J. Figueredo, and M. K. Chen. 2011. Intimate Partner Abuse in Divorce Mediation: Outcomes from a Long­Term Multi-Cultural Study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Beck, C. J. A., M. E. Walsh, and R. Weston. 2009. “Analysis of Mediation Agreements of Families Reporting Specific Types of Intimate Partner Abuse.” Family Court Review 47:401—15.

Clemants, E., and A. Gross. 2007. “‘Why Aren't We Screening?' A Survey Examining Domestic Violence Screening Procedures and Training Protocol in Community Mediation Centers.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24:413—31.

Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Duluth Abuse Intervention Project. n.d. “The Power and Control Wheel.” http:// www.theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PowerandControl.pdf.

Emery, R. E., D. Sbarra, and T. Grover. 2005. “Divorce Mediation: Research and Reflections.” Family Court Review 43 (1): 22—37.

Frederick, L. 2008. “Questions about Family Court Domestic Violence Screening and Assessment.” Family Court Review 46:523—30.

Hart, B. J. 1990. “Gentle Jeopardy: The Further Endangerment of Battered Women and Children in Custody Mediation.” Mediation Quarterly 7:315—30.

Healey, K., C. Smith, with C. O'Sullivan. 1998. Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies. Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., C. J. A. Beck, and A. G. Applegate. 2010. “The Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC): A Screening Interview for Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Available in the Public Domain.” Family Court Review 48:646—62.

Jaffe, P. G., J. R. Johnston, C. V. Crooks, and N. Bala. (2008). “Custody Disputes involving Allegations of Domestic Violence: Toward a Differentiated Approach to Parenting Plans.” Family Court Review 46:500—22.

Kelly, J. B., and M. P. Johnson. 2008. “Differentiation among Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update and Implications for Interventions.” Family Court Review 46:476—99.

Khaw, L., and J. L. Hardesty. 2007. “Theorizing the Process of Leaving: Turning Points and Trajectories in the Stages of Change.” Family Relations, 56:413—25.

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—69. http://cardozojcr.com /issues/volume-12—2/.

Lindlof, T. R., and B. C. Taylor. 2011. Qualitative Communication Research Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation. 2001. Family Court Review 39:121—34.

Murphy, J. C., and R. Rubinson. 2005. “Domestic Violence and Mediation: Responding to the Challenges of Crafting Effective Screens.” Family Law Quarterly 39:53—85.

“Nebraska Mediation Screening Tool.” 2007. Office of Dispute Resolution. http://supremecourt.ne.gov/8607/nebraska-mediation-screening-tool.

Parenting Act. 2008. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43—2920 to 43—2943.

Pearson, J. 1997. “Mediating When Domestic Violence Is a Factor: Policies and Practices in Court-Based Divorce Mediation Programs.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 14:319—35.

Pence, E., and M. Paymar. 1993. Education Groups for Men Who Batter: Th e Duluth Model. New York: Springer.

Rivera, E. A., C. M. Sullivan, and A. M. Zeoli. M. 2012. “Secondary Victimization of Abused Mothers by Family Court Mediators.” Feminist Criminology 7:234—52.

Rubin, H. J., and I. S. Rubin. 2005. Qualitative Interviewing: Th e Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salem, P. 2009. “The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: The Beginning of the End of Mandatory Mediation?” Family Court Review 47:371—88.

SAMHSA. 2013. “Trauma Informed Care & Trauma Services.” The National Center for Trauma-Informed Care. http://www.samhsa.gov/nctic/trauma.asp.

Spangaro, J. M., A. B. Zwi, and R. G. Poulus. 2011. “‘Persist. Persist.': A Qualitative Study of Women's Decisions to Disclose and Their Perceptions of the Impact of Routine Screening for Intimate Partner Violence.” Psychology of Violence 1:150—62.

Stark, E. 2007. Coercive Control: How Men Trap Women in Personal Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stoner, C. R., S. J. Perry, and T. M. Marcum. 2011. “The Court, the Parent, and the Child: Mediator Perceptions of the Purpose and Impact of Mandated Mediated Child Custody Cases.” Journal of Family Law Studies, 13:151—71.

Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes. 2000. Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tsui, V., M. Cheung, and P. Leung. 2010. “Help Seeking among Male Victims of Partner Abuse: Men's Hard Times.” Journal of Community Psychology 38:769—80.

Van Wormer, K. 2009. “Restorative Justice as Social Justice for Victims of Gendered Violence: A Standpoint Feminist Perspective.” Social Work 57:107—16.

Varcoe, C., and Irwin, L. G. 2004. “‘If I Killed You, I'd Get the Kids': Women's Survival and Protection Work with Child Custody and Access in the Context of Woman Abuse.” Qualitative Sociology 27:77—99.

Ver Steegh, N. 2003. “Yes, No, and Maybe: Informed Decision Making about Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence.” William and Mary Journal ofWomen and the Law 9 (145): 1—63.

Ver Steegh, N., and Dalton, C. 2008. “Report from the Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts.” Family Court Review 46:454—75.

Wathen, N., and H. MacMillan. 2003. “Interventions for Violence against Women: Scientific Review.” Journal of the American Medical Association 289:589-99.

Wood, J. T. 2013. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Shereen G. Bingham is a professor in the School of Communication, an ombudsperson, and on the Women's and Gender Studies faculty at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Kerry L. Beldin is an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha's Grace Abbott School of Social Work.

Laura Dendinger is a professor of business at Wayne State College in Wayne, Nebraska.

Copyright of Conflict Resolution Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

1