Parent Education as a Distinct Field of Practice

Salem, Peter; Schepard, Andrew; Schlissel, Stephen W.

doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.1996.tb00397.x

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Parent education programs in the United States began in the mid-1970s and underwent expansion during the 1980s (Salem, Schepard, & Schlissel, 1996). A survey conducted in 1994 (Blaisure & Geasler, 1996) reported that 541 counties across the United States were served by some type of educational program for divorcing parents, and by 1998 this number had nearly tripled (Geasler & Blaisure, 1999).…”

Section: Parent Education In North Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent Education After Separation/Divorce

Bacon

McKenzie

2004

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of a Canadian best practices evaluation of parent education for divorcing parents, this study assessed program effects on postseparation parenting. Statistically significant changes from pretest to 4 to 6 month follow‐up were evident on all scales related to conflict between former partners, whereas changes related to positive and cooperative parenting were less conclusive. All parents experienced a reduction in conflict that places children in the middle of the conflict by the follow‐up stage. Low‐moderate‐conflict parents experienced more increases in adaptive parenting.

show abstract

Section: Parent Education In North Americamentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent Education After Separation/Divorce

Bacon

McKenzie

2004

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the early 1990s a national movement was gaining momentum for the domestic relations courts to offer short parent education classes to divorcing families (Salem et al1996; Schepard 2004). The ASU researchers collaborated with two conciliation staff employees of the court to develop a model of a short parent education program to be used in the court, and to test its’ feasibility and acceptability to parents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration of Prevention Science and the Family Court

Sandler

Knox

Braver

2011

Adm Policy Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes 27 years of collaborative activities between a team of researchers at the Arizona State University Prevention Research Center (ASU PRC) and the Maricopa County Family Court Division of the Superior Court. The complementary goals and expertise of the family court and prevention science are described as providing the foundation in which the missions of each can be advanced through collaborative activities. Four kinds of collaborative activities are described, which are differentiated according to the initiator of the activity and the primary immediate beneficiary. Nineteen separate collaborative activities that were conducted over the 27 years are described. Finally, lessons learned from this long-term collaboration are described including; mutual benefits of each activity, the benefit of complementary perspectives, the cumulative value of collaborations over time, the key role of the local key champion, and the societal benefit from the synergistic roles of university-based research and the family courts.

show abstract

“…Over the past quarter‐century, traditional negotiation and litigation have been joined by a wide range of dispute resolution processes (Salem, 2004). Today, parties may choose from a menu of options including divorce education programs (Salem, Schepard, & Schlissel, 1996), and myriad models of mediation, including facilitative mediation (Mayer, 2004), evaluative mediation (Lowry, 2004), transformative mediation (Bush & Pope, 2004), therapeutic mediation (Pruett & Johnston, 2004), hybrid mediation (Shienvold, 2004), custody evaluations (Stahl, 1994), parenting coordination (Coates, Deutsch, Starnes, Sullivan, & Sydlik, 2004; AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force, 2005), collaborative divorce (Tesler & Thompson, in press), cooperative law (Lande & Herman, 2004), family group conferencing (Chandler & Giovannuci, 2004), and mediation of child dependency matters (Olson, 2004), to name just a few.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

WHAT SHOULD FAMILY LAWYERS KNOW? RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS AND STUDENTS¹

Hedeen¹,

Salem²

2006

Family Court Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contemporary practice of family law demands that lawyers know far more than the law. Results of a recent survey of professionals and law students suggest that today's family lawyer needs knowledge and skills that are often missing from law school curricula. Survey respondents emphasized the importance of strong interpersonal skills like listening, negotiation, and working with clients in emotional crisis, as well as keen understanding of financial issues in family law, the impact of separation and divorce on children, and the ethical dimensions of family law practice. Law students held contrasting views to law faculty and to practicing attorneys on a number of measures, ranking adversarial courtroom skills as more important and placing less emphasis on skills, knowledge, and attributes related to ethics.

show abstract

Parent Education as a Distinct Field of Practice

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

Parent Education After Separation/Divorce

Parent Education After Separation/Divorce

Collaboration of Prevention Science and the Family Court

WHAT SHOULD FAMILY LAWYERS KNOW? RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS AND STUDENTS¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Parent Education as a Distinct Field of Practice

Cited by 24 publications

References 8 publications

Parent Education After Separation/Divorce

Parent Education After Separation/Divorce

Collaboration of Prevention Science and the Family Court

WHAT SHOULD FAMILY LAWYERS KNOW? RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS AND STUDENTS1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

WHAT SHOULD FAMILY LAWYERS KNOW? RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS AND STUDENTS¹