Coparenting relationship trajectories: Marital violence linked to change and variability after separation.

Abstract

Associations between marital intimate partner violence (IPV) and postseparation coparenting relationship trajectories were examined among 135 mothers who participated in five interviews at 3-month intervals in the year following their divorce filing. Growth curve analysis was conducted to assess change and variability in coparenting dimensions (i.e., conflict, support, communication about childrearing, and harassment) in the overall sample and by type of IPV. In the overall sample, coparenting conflict, communication about childrearing, and harassment decreased across the year following separation. However, coparenting relationships differed considerably based on marital IPV experiences. At Time 1, mothers in relationships with coercive controlling violence (CCV) reported higher levels of harassment and conflict, and lower levels of support and communication about coparenting, than mothers with situational couple violence (SCV) or no violence (NV). Furthermore, coparenting relationship trajectories differed significantly by IPV group, with mothers who experienced CCV showing more variability in conflict and harassment, and more marked changes in conflict, support, and harassment. Despite many similarities, mothers with SCV showed higher initial levels of harassment compared to mothers with NV. Findings can support family court and social service professionals’ efforts to individualize interventions with divorcing parents based on IPV experiences. In cases of coercive control, for example, attention to heightened control dynamics in the immediate separation remain critical but the persistent volatility across the first year suggests the potential for chronic stress. With situational couple violence, practitioners may be able to capitalize on parents’ reasonable levels of communication and steady coparental support.

Postdivorce Coparenting Relationships and Parent–Youth Relationships: Are Repartnership and Parent–Youth Contact Moderators?

“…If replicated in future studies, this may mean that parallel or moderately involved coparenting might be recommended when former spouses are unable to coparent cooperatively. For example, ongoing physical or psychological abuse, extensive interparental conflicts, or other concerns related to parental fitness are real barriers to coparenting (Hardesty et al, 2017; Russell et al, 2016). In these situations, alternative forms of coparenting (e.g., moderately engaged or parallel) may better meet the needs of parents and youth.…”

A Socioecological Perspective on Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Decade in Review

“…Health outcomes varied as a function of IPV type (i.e., SCV, CCV) as well as the presence of postseparation relationship stressors such as coparenting conflict and harassment. Additional work from this study (e.g., Hardesty et al, ) demonstrated that IPV significantly influenced trajectories of coparenting relationships following divorce. Shortt et al () also examined changes in violence over time and found that men's perpetration of physical aggression decreased but that physical aggression earlier in life predicted physical aggression 7 and 12 years later.…”

“…Mothers who experienced CCV (vs. SCV or no violence) in marriage were found to have the lowest quality coparenting relationships in the year following a divorce filing (Hardesty et al, ). They also experienced the most harassment and coparenting conflict (Hardesty et al, ), more depression, PTSD, and physical health symptoms (Hardesty et al, ), and more volatility and unpredictable patterns of harassment and conflict (Hardesty et al, ). Despite considerable intrusion by former partners for years after separation, studies demonstrate mothers' and children's regenerative capacity to recover from IPV (Broughton & Ford‐Gilboe, ; Yu, Petit, Lansford, Dodge, & Bates, ).…”

Qualitative Research on Interpersonal Violence: Guidance for Early Career Scholars

“…Role-playing helps familiarize team members with the protocols so they come more naturally to them if/when the specific scenarios arise and help us identify any gaps or flaws in our approaches. For example, in our study on IPV, divorce, and coparenting (Hardesty et al, 2017), RAs role-played how to handle screening calls if a former partner (instead of the woman we intended to reach) answered the phone. Situations like this can easily catch RAs off guard if they are not prepared to share a generic description of the study (e.g., on “women’s health”) or leave a general message.…”