Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjdr20

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

ISSN: 1050-2556 (Print) 1540-4811 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

The Complexity of Families Involved in High-Conflict Disputes: A Postseparation EcologicalTransactional Framework

Shely Polak & Michael Saini

To cite this article: Shely Polak & Michael Saini (2018): The Complexity of Families Involved inHigh-Conflict Disputes: A Postseparation Ecological Transactional Framework, Journal of Divorce &Remarriage, DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2018.1488114

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1488114

Published online: 06 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

The Complexity of Families Involved in High-ConflictDisputes: A Postseparation Ecological TransactionalFrameworkShely Polak and Michael Saini

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACTThe use of the term ‘high conflict’ to describe a wide range offamily dynamics after separation and divorce has increasedsignificantly over the years. At the moment, no consensus onthe definition of high conflict exists. Lack of definitional clarityhinders the ability for legal and mental health professionals toassess, identify, and effectively intervene with this population.Based on a rapid evidence assessment of 65 empirically basedsocial science studies relevant to high conflict, this articlepositions high-conflict separation and divorce using an ecolo-gical transactional model to better understand risk factors andindicators associated with these families. Authors propose amore comprehensive definition that captures the complexityand interactions of various risk factors and indicators on multi-ple levels. Positioning high-conflict families using an ecologicalmodel identifies several points of intervention professionalscan use and the fundamental need for collaboration amongstakeholders for effective intervention.

KEYWORDSDivorce; high conflict;ecological theory; systematicreview

Separation and divorce have become commonplace in today’s society. Thevast majority of separating couples with children can resolve their feelings ofanger toward their ex-partners in a timely manner and transition successfullytoward positive coparenting relationships (Bacon & McKenzie, 2004;Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). In approximately 10% to 15% of families,interparental conflict can continue to define the separated couple despitethe passage of time (Amato, 2001; Grych, 2005; Shifflett & Cummings, 1999;Stewart, 2001). Families in high conflict continue to draw the attention ofboth scholars and professionals as the field continues to debate its prevalence,etiology, and the most effective treatment approaches for these families.Notwithstanding the widespread focus on high-conflict families in the litera-ture, there remains no consensus on the conceptual basis for its applicationto the field of separation and divorce.

CONTACT Shely Polak shely.polak@utoronto.ca Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University ofToronto, 246 Bloor Street W., Toronto, ON M5S 1V4, Canada.Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjdr.

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGEhttps://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2018.1488114

© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Despite definitional and assessment challenges of unresolved high conflictwithin separated families, research studies have consistently reported thenegative consequences of high conflict for parents and their children(Amato, 2001, 2010; Booth & Amato, 2001; Kelly, 2000; Kelly & Emery,2003; Kelly & Lamb, 2000). Empirical evidence has found that childrenfrom low-conflict divorced homes show better functioning and overallwell-being than children from intact families fraught with high conflict(Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991; Buehler et al., 1997; Coleman &Glenn, 2010; Cummings, George, McCoy, & Davies, 2012; Hetherington &Kelly, 2002; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009;Kelly, 2000; Sandler, Miles, Cookston, & Braver, 2008). Protracted litigationand conflict due to child-related disagreements appear to be the most harm-ful on children and the parent–child relationships (Buchanan, Maccoby, &Dornbusch, 1991; Camara & Resnick, 1988, 1989; Emery, 1982; Grych, 2005;Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Kline, Johnston, & Tschann, 1991; Stewart, 2001).These children have been shown to exhibit higher levels of anxiety (Amato,2001; Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1996), depression (Amato, 2001;Buchanan et al., 1996), anger and aggression (Amato, 2001; Amato & Afifi,2006; Hetherington, 1999), low self-esteem (Hetherington, 1999), delin-quency (Amato, 2001; Hetherington, 1999; Kelly, 2000; Kelly & Emery,2003), academic decline (Amato, 2001; Hetherington, 1999; Kelly, 2000),deterioration in the parent–child relationship (Amato, 2001; Amato & Afifi,2006; Fosco & Grych, 2010), and overall maladjustment (Kelly, 2012).

A significant challenge in interpreting this evidence is that most studies areunable to differentiate the nature and severity of families that exhibit lowversus normal versus high levels of conflict and few studies have consideredwhat factors should be used to distinguish between levels of conflict. Thevarious definitions of high conflict mirror the diversity of theoretical frame-works applied to assess the presence and severity of conflict within familiespostseparation. For instance, some definitions focus solely on the individuallevel of analysis with emphasis placed on personality traits and disorders,mental health concerns, or the individual characterology of parents. Othersfocus on larger systemic issues and institutions that exacerbate parentalconflict, such as the adversarial legal system or professionals who take sidesin the dispute. The lack of consensus on the definition of associated factors ofhigh conflict make it difficult to effectively intervene with these families.

Purpose and significance of review

This article highlights findings from a review of empirical studies on highconflict. Framed within an ecological transactional framework, the reviewidentifies several associated risk factors, indicators, and consequences ofhigh-conflict postseparation and frames these within layers of analysis to

2 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

shed light on the various systems that contribute to the presence and severityof conflict within families. Moving toward a more complex understandingcan help guide the assessment of high conflict and can contribute to match-ing services that better meets families’ needs.

Authors of this study are mental health clinicians with significant com-bined experience working with high-conflict families across multiple rolesand settings (i.e., forensic, child protection, and therapeutic). It is with thisexperience that researchers formulated the original research question to helpbetter understand this population, gain a deeper understanding of factorsprecipitating and perpetuating high conflict, and identify more effectiveinterventions.

Method

Rapid evidence assessment (REA; Davies, 2004) was used as a systematicreview method for identifying and retrieving existing research empiricalstudies related to high-conflict separation and divorce. REA is a usefulmethod for capturing the empirical evidence in a specific area as the methodprovides a timely, thorough, and robust synthesis of diverse evidence(Regehr, Stern, & Shlonsky, 2007).

Electronic databases selected to search for empirical studies related tohigh-conflict separation and divorce included PsycINFO, Medline,Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts.The primary search terms for information retrieval included (terms wereadapted based on controlled vocabulary of each database) (exp conflict/orexp “conflict (psychology)” or high conflict.mp. or exp Domestic Violence/orexp violence or exp emotion/or exp anger/or exp alienation or preoccupa-tion.mp. or family conflict.mp. or marital conflict.mp. or interpersonal rela-tionships.mp.) and (exp Divorce/or divorce.mp. or relationship terminationor marital separation or divorced persons).

Screening process

Based on the electronic search strategy, 3,220 titles and abstracts wereretrieved. All titles were imported into a data management program andscreened by two independent raters based on the following inclusion criteria:(a) the population was related to separated persons, divorced persons, orboth; (b) the study was related to factors associated with high interparentalconflict; and (c) the study was an empirical study. To ensure inclusion of themaximum number of studies, both published and unpublished works wereconsidered eligible, as well as both quantitative and qualitative studies. Thesearch was restricted to studies in the English language. From the 3,220 titles,621 titles (19%) passed the first level of screening. Full articles were retrieved

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 3

of these 621 titles and screened based on whether the article provided adefinition for high conflict, discussed prevalence of high conflict, assessedfactors associated with high conflict, or included a measure of conflict. Basedon this second more comprehensive screening process, 65 articles wereincluded in the final analysis.

Data analysis framework

Major findings across the included studies were analyzed within an ecologicaltransactional approach as a way to organize the various definitions, under-standings, risk factors and predictors, and indicators of high-conflict families.First used in discussions of child maltreatment, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)ecological model sought to highlight the interaction among human charac-teristics, personal development, and the environments in which individualsfind themselves. Later, Belsky (1980) and Cicchetti and Rizley (1981)expanded the ecological framework by detailing its four parts: ontogeneticdevelopment (individual), microsystem (family), exosystem (community),and macrosystem (culture), while highlighting their reciprocal interactions.In the context of high-conflict families, the analogous systems include anindividual’s own ontogenetic development (biological, psychological andemotional, behavioral, cognitive), interpersonal systems (parent–child rela-tionship, family, friends, kin, other members of social networks), organiza-tions (schools, child welfare, police, other institutions and communityresources), and one’s physical environment (social location, laws, legislation,etc.).

Framing the evidence within an ecological transactional model provides amore comprehensive approach for understanding high conflict. The benefitof the ecological transactional model is that it does not view factors of highconflict as being mutually exclusive from each other; rather, significantoverlap among risk factors, indicators, and consequences are anticipated.For instance, preexisting mental health issues can predispose a parent tohigh conflict, can contribute to the perpetuation of high conflict, and canhave significant implications on parenting capacity, the parent–child rela-tionship, and overall parent and child adjustment problems.

Results of using the ecological transactional model to define highconflict

Using the ecological transactional model, this research highlights threedomains to be considered for understanding high conflict. The first domainincludes the risk factors, or predictors, that point to the likelihood of highconflict developing based on preexisting factors. The second domain includesthe indicators, or actual signs, that high conflict is occurring. Consistent with

4 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

the definitional framework, these risk factors and indicators are consideredwithin their ontogentic, microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem levels.The third domain includes the consequences that result from the presence ofhigh conflict within families after separation and divorce (see Figure 1).

Based on results from this review, ontogenetic risk factors include person-ality disorders, mental health issues, insecure attachments, and substancemisuse. Microsystem risk factors include negative parental behaviors, time,attachment insecurities, power differentials, and financial dependency.Exosystem risk factors include extended family taking sides, also known as“tribal warfare” or “cheerleaders” (Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Johnston et al.,2009) as well as professionals taking sides serving as negative advocates.Other exosystem risk factors include the involvement of child welfare, police,or other professional institutions (e.g., lawyers, children’s legal representa-tion, child advocates, etc.). Macrosystem risk factors include the law andlegislation, culture, religion, and traditions.

The second domain includes the indicators: the demonstrable signs thathigh conflict is occurring. According to the results, ontogenetic indicatorsinclude anger and hostility, rigid views, and substance use while caring forthe child. Microsystem indicators include chronic fighting and lack of orineffective coparent communication, diffuse parent–child boundaries, irre-gular parent–child contact, and difficulty or failure to fulfill child supportobligations. Exosystem indicators include entrenched litigation, tribal

Figure 1. Ecological transactional model for understanding risk factors, indicators, and conse-quences of high-conflict divorce and separation.

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 5

warfare, and multiple involvements of services. Macrosystem indicatorsinclude conflict about religion and a prolonged legal process.

Ontogenetic development: personality disorders and individual schemas

Personality disordersWhen the locus of conflict is ascribed to an individual, personality disordersand extreme personality traits are said to define and contribute to high-conflict divorces. The presence of personality disorders and psychopathologysuch as pathological narcissism, envy, entrenched hatred, borderline person-ality, paranoid personality, counterdependence, primitive defenses, andsociopathic or antisocial personality traits have all been found to be prevalentwithin parents involved in high conflict (Baum, 2004; Baum & Shnit, 2003;Donner, 2006; Eddy, 2007; Friedman, 2004; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Levite& Cohen, 2012; Renner & Leibetseder, 2000; Siegel & Langford, 1998).

Ex-partners with narcissistic personalities are believed to be preoccupiedwith their own needs and desires while remaining oblivious or indifferent tothe needs and wishes of their children or ex-spouse (Baum & Shnit, 2003;Eddy, 2007; Friedman, 2004; Johnston & Roseby, 1997). These individualsoften have difficulty taking responsibility or accountability for their ownbehaviors and instead blame others for the conflict. These individuals areconsidered unable to see or respond to their children’s needs and wishes asbeing distinct, separate, and perhaps different from their own. Seeking childcustody might satisfy their own need or desire to seek revenge or wound hisor her ex-spouse. Relief and gratification might stem from hurting the otherparent as opposed to achieving the best possible parenting plan for the child(Donner, 2006).

Other examples of personality disorders associated with high-conflictcouples are counterdependence, primitive defenses, and borderline person-ality. Counterdependent parents are described as being self-sufficient, inde-pendent, and in control of their lives, but with extreme underlying rigidity.These parents might dictatorially refuse to compromise or cooperate withoutfeeling a sense of capitulation (Friedman, 2004). In other cases, parents mightproject retaliation, thereby spurring more contempt toward that person, ineffect establishing a vicious cycle that is initiated both internally and exter-nally (Cohen & Levite, 2012). This manner of splitting and projecting isdemonstrative of primitive object relations and indicative of insufficientcoping mechanisms to deal with the painful feelings associated with loss.Instead these primitive defenses serve as protection from the pain, frustra-tion, rage, ambivalence, and hatred (Levite & Cohen, 2012).

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is also commonly associated withhigh conflict. BPD is characterized by an individual with a high fear ofabandonment, idealization of self and devaluation of other, impulsive

6 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

behavior, and sudden, intense, and extreme anger (Eddy, 2010). Having thesepersonality traits is likely to exacerbate conflict as a way of satisfying one’sown needs.

Self-differentiation refers to an individual’s ability to express feelings andthoughts while keeping his or her emotional impulses in check. This includesthe ability to make planned decisions and respond with flexibility evenduring stressful times (Baum & Shnit, 2003, 2005). Individuals with poorself-differentiation might act and react impulsively and rigidly and are oftenemotionally dependent on others (Baum & Shnit, 2003). These individualsmight use conflict to retain pseudo-independence and emotional engagementwith the other person. When situations become stressful, they often viewothers as hostile (Baum & Shnit, 2003). In these examples, the locus of theconflict, that is the primary originator or influence of conflict, resides withinthe individual personality factors.

Mental health concernsAt the ontogenetic level, there is also a strong association between high-conflict parents and the presence of mental health disorders and unresolvedemotional issues (Bonach, 2005; Booth & Amato, 2001; Fischer, De Graaf, &Kalmijn, 2005; Neff & Cooper, 2004; Radovanovic, 1993; Rutter, 2005;Tschann, Johnston, & Wallerstein, 1989). It has been reported that parentswith mental health problems and personality problems generally have moredifficulty maintaining friendships, more trouble maintaining amicable con-tact with their ex-partners, and greater difficulty regulating emotions, bothpositive and negative (Johnston et al., 2009).

Mental health issues might have been present previously, but exacerbatedby the family breakdown, creating higher risk of high conflict postseparation.Wade and Pevalin (2004) reported that transitioning out of marriage islinked to a higher prevalence of poor mental health postseparation, althoughpoor mental health also precedes marital disruption.

Using secondary analysis of 10,264 respondents to the British HouseholdPanel Survey, Wade and Pevalin (2004) documented that 46% of separatedadults had elevated rates of mental health problems compared to 12.3% remain-ing married. In a large national sample of 2,033 parents, Booth and Amato(2001) reported that the combination of divorce and higher levels of conflictwere negatively associated with psychological well-being. Similarly, the Sbarra,Emery, Sbarra, and Emery (2005) study highlighted that nonacceptances ofcoparenting relationships was positively associated with higher levels of parents’depression, suggesting that the presence of mental health problems is positivelycorrelated with ongoing conflict between the parties.

Due to the cross-sectional design of these studies, it is unclear whether theparents experienced mental health problems during the marriage or whether

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 7

these problems developed after the divorce. Nevertheless, it highlights themental health finding as a risk factor among high-conflict parents.

Insecure attachmentsAccording to object relations theory, an individual’s internal schemas devel-oped from his or her own interpersonal experiences can be linked to apropensity to become high-conflict parents. Schemas are networks thatembody constellations of recurring emotional experiences, interpretations,and behaviors that constitute personality traits, behavioral dispositions,mood, attitudes, and dispositions (Prescott, 2006). Traits of high-conflictcouples within this lens include distorted self-image (low or grandiose),difficulty relating to others, difficulty initiating or completing tasks, rigidthinking, polarized views, inability to resolve conflict, and an inability or fearof loss. Possessing these character traits contributes to chronic interpersonalconflict, insecure attachments, and a poor tolerance for separation (Prescott,2006). The locus of the conflict continues to be within the ontogeneticdevelopment, but rather than ascribing to personality disorders, it is due toone’s cognitive schemas.

High conflict has also been described as a disorganized adult attachmentresponse (Saini, 2007). Through this lens, high conflict is conceptualized interms of parents’ responses to feared or actual loss or separation from anadult attachment figure (e.g., ex-spouse). In this model, emotional andbehavioral patterns deemed adaptive during marriage, such as seeking proxi-mity, can be understood as maladaptive in the postdivorce context(Greenberg, 2006).

Substance abuseAnother individual factor that can exacerbate high-conflict divorce is thepresence of substance use, overuse, and misuse (Gilmour, 2004; Johnston,1994; Radovanovic, 1993). In Johnston and Campbell’s (1988) cross-sectionalstudy, one fourth of 160 parents in the clinical sample had substance abuseproblems. In Depner, Cannata, and Simon’s (1992) study of 93% of alldisputes regarding custody and access during a 2-week period, results showthat 36% of the sample expressed concerns about exposing the child to theother parent because of his or her substance abuse.

Microsystem

When the locus of conflict resides within the interpersonal system, the conflictencompasses the parental subsystem, the parent–child subsystem, and theparents’ larger social networks including extended family, kin, friends, andneighbors (Mitcham-Smith & Henry, 2007; Trinder, Kellet, & Swift, 2008).

8 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

Negative parental behaviorsWith the locus of conflict embedded in the parental subsystem, the conflict inthis system is characterized by a hostile coparent relationship. Conflict mightoccur as a response to feeling hurt, shamed, or humiliated by the ex-spouse,or by the separation and divorce process itself (Hopper, 2001). This could bedemonstrated by parental negative behaviors such as reacting with anger anddistrust toward the other parent, difficulty communicating or refusing tospeak with the other parent over the care of the children, engaging in verbaldisputes and conflict during child(ren)’s exchanges or arguing violently intheir child(ren)’s presence, talking negatively about the other parent and hisor her family to the child(ren), insisting that children carry verbal or writtencommunications between homes about late support payments or missedvisits, and physically assaulting each other in their children’s presence(Stewart, 2001; Wesolowski, Nelson, & Bing, 2008).

In more recent research, Malcore, Windell, Seyuin, and Hill (2010)assessed level of conflict between coparents and predictors of conflict basedon a sample of 147 women and 133 men who participated in a treatmentprogram specifically geared toward high-conflict separated and divorcedparents. A multiple regression analysis revealed that parents’ ability toagree, the inclusion of children in the parental conflict, and parental com-munication were significant predictors of high conflict. These predictorsreliably predicted the number of times coparents returned to court.

Literature further shows high-conflict parents often involve and enmeshchildren in the conflict (Johnston et al., 2009). Crossing these boundariescan include questioning the child about the other parent; using the child asa messenger, exposing the child to negative interparental conflict, exposingthe child to inappropriate content of adult disputes (e.g., financial mat-ters), and using the child to provide inappropriate emotional and practicalsupport to a parent. This type of behavior is not only damaging to achild’s emotional well-being, but facilitates loyalty binds in children andstrained parent–child relationships (Goodman, Bonds, Sandler, & Braver,2004; Trinder, Kellet, & Swift, 2008). In the 17-year longitudinal study of2,033 adults, Amato and Afifi (2006) found that children with parents inhigh conflict were more likely than other children to feel caught betweentheir parents. Fosco and Grych’s (2010) longitudinal study examined therelations between triangulation, appraisal of conflict, and parent–childrelations in a sample of 171 adolescents. Results revealed interparentalconflict was related to higher levels of adolescents’ triangulation, feelingsof threat, blame, and lower levels of coping efficacy. Adolescents reportedthe highest levels of triangulation in families with intense, frequent, andpoorly resolved interparental conflict.

There is growing evidence that points to the overlap of high-conflictdivorce and parental alienating behaviors such as bad mouthing the other

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 9

parent, withholding child access in response to interparental conflict, poorparent–child boundaries, and making the child feel guilty or afraid of visitingthe other parent. Although parental alienation occurs in high-conflict situa-tions, not all high-conflict cases involve alienation (Fidler, Bala, & Saini,2013).

Domestic violenceIn the past decade, the literature has moved toward differentiating highconflict from intimate partner violence (IPV; Jaffe, Crooks, & Bala, 2009;Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, & Bala, 2008; Johnston, 2006). Although research hasfound some overlap wherein violence or a history of violence can be onefactor when describing high-conflict divorce (Dalton, Carbon, & Olsen, 2003;Ehrenberg, 1996; Gilmour, 2004; Johnston, 1997; Sanford & Rowatt, 2004), itis important to distinguish high conflict from IPV. IPV involves a pattern ofcontrol, power and coercion, and domination and humiliation through theuse of threat, violence or fear of violence, emotional abuse, or other coercivemeans (Johnston, 2006). IPV is markedly different from high conflict andmust be treated as such.

TimeAlthough time might not heal all wounds, in a divorce, time is essential. Theliterature indicates it takes approximately 2 to 3 years for couples to recover fromthe initial disruption of divorce, emotionally disengage from each other, and learnnew ways to communicate and coparent effectively (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Financial concernsOngoing connections to the other parent due to economic ties have beenfound to be a factor for the potential of high conflict (Fischer et al., 2005).Conflict can also be based on how parents deal with the division of financesafter separation, including issues of child support, division of property, andother shared monetary responsibilities. These conflicts can be further fueledbased on the parents’ level of income disparity.

In Bonach’s (2005) study of 135 respondents, conflicts were related to theconnection between access to the child by the noncustodial parent and thepayment of child support. Specifically, results showed that satisfaction withchild support arrangements was one of the strongest predictors of the qualityof the coparenting relationship postdivorce and parent–child contact, parti-cularly a father’s contact (Amato, 2010). Similarly, Hutson (2007) found thatthe average amount of child support received in a month among low-incomefamilies was related to coparent conflict during transitions. In high-conflictcases, it is not uncommon for one of the parents or both to be dissatisfiedwith the financial support arrangements (Drapeau, Gagné, Saint-Jacques,Lépine, & Ivers, 2009; Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999; Madden-Derdich,

10 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

Leonard, & Christopher, 1999). The hostility of the divorce proceedings andsatisfaction with financial support were found to have indirect effects on thecoparental relationship through their direct effects on interparental conflict

Exosystem

Couples form social bonds through common friends and their children. Ex-partners who shared most of their friends and leisure time while togetherduring are generally more dependent on each other than ex-partners whomaintained separate social lives while together (Kalmijn & Bernasco, 2001).

Visser et al.’s (2017) study of 136 divorced parents found that higher levelsof perceived network disapproval were significantly related to more copar-enting conflicts and lower levels of forgiveness. In a second study of 110high-conflict separated parents referred for clinical intervention, authors alsofound that higher levels of perceived social network disapproval were sig-nificantly related to more coparenting conflicts.

Friedman (2004) argued that conflict is embedded in and encouraged bythe larger system, including extended family and friends, support groupswith their own political agenda, therapists, and attorneys within the adver-sarial legal process. Johnston and Roseby (1997, 2009) used the terms tribalwarfare and cheerleaders to describe how parents draw their larger socialnetwork, including extended family, significant others, new partners, profes-sionals, and mental health professionals into the conflict to entrench theirown political agendas. The entrenchment of professionals into the conflictfurther contributes to the impasse and parental conflict.

Macrosystem: legal (read adversarial) systems and power differentials

Structure of legal systemConflict played out in the courtroom could be fueled by the adversarialnature of the legal system and by the procedures and practices of attorneyswho serve as its functionaries. Within the organizational social system, thelegal system can reinforce or exacerbate high conflict via the requirement offiling affidavits in support of their application and parenting plan requests.Kelly and Emery (2013) cite that the legal adversarial process dictates posi-tional and dichotomous thinking about parental deficiencies and discouragescommunication and cooperation between parents regarding their children’sneeds. Similarly, Bonach (2005) found that less hostile legal proceedings wereone of the strongest predictors of a better quality coparenting relationship.

High-conflict parents are identified by high rates of litigation and relitiga-tion (Goodman et al., 2004; Johnston, 1997), appealing decisions, frequentrequests to vary orders, and enforcement actions for noncompliance withcourt orders (Goodman et al., 2004).

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 11

The term entrenched litigation generally refers to court proceedings thatremain unresolved despite the passage of time and where parents areunwilling or unable to come to agreement (Nowlin, 2006). Contestedissues might include the child’s residential schedule, disputes over majordecisions, spousal and child support contributions, and how money isspent on the child, among others (Vandewater & Lansford, 1998).Whereas Emery (1994) suggested that hostile divorce proceedings are anindication of unresolved emotional issues related to the termination of themarital relationship, from the macro perspective, it is the limitation of thefamily court system to appropriately respond to the emotional turmoilexperienced by these parents. In other words, the limitations of the judicialprocess to solve family problems (e.g., adversarial nature of the court, theuse of emotionally harmful affidavits, court delays, etc.) often facilitate orexacerbate high conflict.

Baum (2003) randomly selected 100 divorced parents (50 couples) fromthe registers of the social service departments of several cities in thecentral region of Israel and found that higher levels of conflict wereassociated with more difficult legal proceedings and the parents wereinvolved in litigation longer than low-conflict parents. In a comparisonof 71 families randomly assigned to either divorce mediation or traditionallitigation to resolve their custody disputes, Sbarra et al. (2005) reportedthat litigation participants reported more conflict at the follow-up. High-conflict parents have less control over settlement negotiations (Bay &Braver, 1990) and are generally less content with the court process(Hopper, 2001).

Religion and cultureReligious and cultural differences can manifest themselves into high-conflictsituations, which are particularly difficult for mental health and legal profes-sionals to help resolve given that there are no singular answers to theseconflicts and often no consensus on how the system should deal with deeplyrooted differences in religion and culture within the context of separationand divorce (Elrod, 2001; Yeager, 2009)

Police, child protection, and involvement of other social services

Police and child protection services are commonly involved with the high-conflict population at the organizational social system level (Houston, Bala,& Saini, 2017). Allegations of child maltreatment in the context of high-conflict child custody disputes are common (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, &Walters, 2005; Saini et al., 2012; Trocme & Bala, 2005). Without earlyidentification and appropriate interventions for this vulnerable population,child protection services run the risk of causing further harm to families by

12 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

causing high-conflict families to fall into the proverbial cracks of the socialservice system by not adequately responding to the emotional harm ofchildren caught in high-conflict situations (Saini, Black, Fallon, & Marshall,2013; Saini et al., 2012).

Consequences of high conflict

Given the strong link of high conflict and negative emotional and psycholo-gical adjustment in children, one must consider the impact high conflict hason children and their families. High conflict can affect parents’ emotionaland psychological well-being, create parenting problems, limit parents’ abilityto be attuned to their children, and affect the parent–child relationship.

Evidence is clear that children from couples who are engaged in separa-tions with high levels of conflict can suffer from long-lasting implications ontheir psychosocial adjustment (Lansford, 2009). Although children whoseparents divorce might be better off than those children whose parents staytogether in a high-conflict marriage, the impacts of a high-conflict divorceare significant (Lansford, Ceballo, Abbey, & Stewart, 2001). Amato (2001)found that children who lived in divorced high-conflict families had similaroutcomes as those who were in high-conflict intact families.

Research into the adjustment of children after divorce has shown thatparental conflict is the most significant predictor of a child’s well-beingfollowing divorce (Amato, 2010; Amato & Keith, 1991; Vareschi & Bursik,2005). Moreover, the frequency and intensity of the conflict greatly influ-ences the child’s well-being. Couples with frequent conflict show that theirchildren exhibit more problematic behaviors (both internalizing and exter-nalizing; Amato, 2005; Amato & Keith, 1991; Vareschi & Bursik, 2005).Research has shown the best adjustment of children involves parents whoexhibit cooperative and nurturing behaviors during their divorce, both to oneanother and toward their children (Vareschi & Bursik, 2005).

Parenting problems

Scholars have suggested that hostility and preoccupation are prominentemotional reactions between high-conflict parents In Hetherington andKelly’s (2002) study of nearly 1,400 families and more than 2,500 children,divorced parents were generally less competent in their parenting thanparents in nondivorced families. When parents are caught in high conflict,their focused attention toward the conflict can debilitate their overall parentfunctioning, thereby making them less able to protect their children from theconflict (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000).

Sandler et al. (2008) found that the level of conflict between the parentsand the warmth of the relationship of each parent helped to distinguish

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 13

children’s levels of internalizing problems, whereby children who did notreceive warmth from either parent had the highest level of internalizingproblems. Children with at least one parent who provided warmth hadlower levels of internalizing problems, even if they had a negative relation-ship with the other parent. This “compensation effect” suggests that a warmrelationship with at least one parent can compensate for the lack of a warmrelationship with the other parent (Sandler et al., 2008). Children had thelowest internalizing problems when they had positive and warm relationshipswith both parents, suggesting that children do best when their parents areable to protect them from conflict and meet their needs for warmth, atten-tion, affection, support, and affirming parent–child relationships (Amato &Gilbreth, 1999; Booth, Scott, & King, 2010; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002;Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001).

Strained parent–child relationships

There is substantial evidence that high-conflict divorce negatively influencesparent–child relationships (Amato & Cheadle, 2005; Amato & Keith, 1991;Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Amato & Rezac, 1994; Buchanan et al., 1991;Camara & Resnick, 1988, 1989; Emery, 1982; Kline et al., 1991; Long, Slater,Forehand, & Fauber, 1988). Being placed in the middle can result in feelingsof anxiety, distress, and loyalty conflicts between the parents. It can alsoaffect the parent–child relationship and facilitate the formation of alliances(Buchanan et al., 1991; Johnston & Campbell, 1988; Kelly & Emery, 2003).

Child maladjustment

High conflict has been linked to children’s maladjustment due to the negativeeffects of chronic high conflict on children as they experience feelings ofchronic stress, insecurity, and agitation (Davies & Cummings, 1994); shame,self-blame, and guilt (Grych & Fincham, 1992); a chronic sense of help-lessness (Davies & Cummings, 1994); fears for their own physical safety(Davies & Cummings, 1994); and a sense of rejection, neglect, unresponsive-ness, and lack of interest in their well-being (Davies & Cummings, 1994;Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Johnston,1995). Other problems might include poor academic achievement; poorsocial relationships; conduct and social difficulties; emotional difficultiessuch as depression, fear, anxiety, and substance abuse; and poor adultrelationships (Brandon, 2006; Faircloth & Cummings, 2008; Grych, 2005;Lindsey, Colwell, Frabutt, & MacKinnon-Lewis, 2006).

14 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

Discussion

A comprehensive view of high conflict

By reviewing and analyzing the high-conflict literature and positioning itwithin an ecological transactional model, it is evident that high conflict is notsituated in any one particular system, but rather is a complex, multifacetedintegration of several systems surrounding the family, the former couple, andthe children. As such, no one definition offers the panacea that embodies allaspects of the complexity of conflict and no one specific factor providesgreater insight into the development of high conflict over others. Rather, amultifaceted definition of high conflict should include a variety of typologiesand dimensions of high conflict depending on the system identified as thelocus of the conflict. Using an ecological transactional model, this reviewprovides the basis for understanding the risk factors and indicators within acomprehensive framework.

LimitationsStudies included in this review have several methodological flaws that limitthe generalizability of the results across diverse populations. There is atendency in the literature to oversample previously married heterosexualcouples or not specify the status of the previous couple relationship. Theheterogeneity of previous relationship status among separated parentsrequires further attention to uncover potential unique factors for never-married relationships, common-law relationships, and same-sex relation-ships, among others. Separated families are a heterogeneous group, yetmany studies fail to control for demographic data, such as the child’s ageat separation, the child’s gender, socioeconomic status of both parents fol-lowing separation, cultural and religious factors, the parents’ level of educa-tion, and current marital status. The literature on high conflict is furtherlimited by the absence of control groups to compare findings to matchedintact families. It is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to determinewhether factors found to be related to high conflict are unique to thedivorced populations. As well, after review of the current state of the litera-ture, it was noticed that high conflict has been studied and examined as anindependent variable used to predict other factors, such as a child’s emo-tional well-being (e.g., mental health, academic performance, etc.). Therefore,there remains a lack of evidence that considers high conflict as the dependentvariable in attempt to identify factors that predict the presence and severityof high conflict among separating and divorcing couples.

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 15

Need for comprehensive assessment and measures for high conflict

Legal and mental health professionals working with the high-conflict popula-tion should familiarize themselves with the interacting systems that frameand exacerbate high conflict. Positioning high conflict within an ecologicaltransactional model provides professionals in the field with a more systema-tic method to assess the conflict, the various factors at play, and theirinteractions critical for a comprehensive understanding. Identification ofrisk factors or indicators among several systems provides professionals withseveral points of entry for treatment and intervention to occur to achieveoptimum success. To have a more robust understanding of the ecology of theconflict, mental health practitioners involved with high-conflict familiesshould consider exploring these questions:

(1) How long has the family been in litigation?(2) If the family is still involved in litigation, what are the issues in

dispute?(3) What role do extended family or new relationships have in the

conflict?(4) If other professionals are involved, what role do they have in the

conflict (e.g., negative advocate, cheerleader)?(5) How do each parent’s attachment style, personality, or characterologi-

cal traits contribute to the conflict and coparental relationship?(6) How does the conflict affect the parent–child relationship due to

comprised parenting or overall parental well-being?(7) What is the impact of the families’ culture or religion on the conflict?

Exploring these questions during the course of an assessment can assistpractitioners in providing tailored and more effective treatment interventionsor recommendations for high-conflict families in need.

Need for coordinated services

Based on the review of the research, it is evident that the presence of highconflict or facets of conflict are seldom encountered exclusively in onesystem; rather, multiple systems are often at play. Consequently, no onespecific intervention exists that can address all of the factors identified inthis review. It is recommended that professionals who engage with high-conflict families commence by determining the multiple systems and factorsthat could be contributing to the perpetuation of the conflict. Following theidentification of the systems at play, professionals should consider the var-ious treatment modalities available to help resolve the conflict. Rather thanan all-encompassing treatment approach for children and high-conflict

16 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

families, legal and mental health professionals should consider various ser-vices that focus on different systems. Treatment options might include thefollowing:

(1) Individual counselling (for both parents and the children).(2) Specialized counseling (e.g., counselling specifically focusing on anger

management, substance use, mental health, parenting, etc.).(3) Coparent counseling to help develop a disengaged, yet cooperative

coparent relationship.(4) Parent education programs.(5) Family counseling, particularly in cases where strained parent–child

relations are present.(6) Dispute resolution mechanisms.

Due to the complexity of these high-conflict cases, coordinated servicesamong service providers are strongly recommended. Coordinated serviceshelp prevent treatment providers from working in silos and inadvertentlycontributing to the conflict. In other cases, coordinated services can helpshine light on other potential factors at play, which might require changes tothe treatment approach as a whole. As such, having a team lead or casemanager, such as a parent coordinator, with open communication andexchange of information between professionals to coordinate service orconsolidate treatment gains is likely to garner the most success.

Future research

This study provided a framework for understanding the complexity ofhigh-conflict divorce and separation. Future research should build on theknowledge gained from this study by testing the relevance of the findingsto specific populations. More emphasis is needed on the heterogeneouspopulations experiencing conflict, including differences in culture, maritalstatus, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Research is needed toexplore unique differences to examine these findings in the context ofseparated, never-married parent relationships and separated same-sex par-ent dyads.

The majority of studies included court-based samples, including parentswho were entrenched in litigation. Further research is needed to explorefindings and potential differences among other high-risk groups, such asparents involved in community-based programs, clinical populations, andthose involved in child protection settings.

Further, given the voluminous amount of literature in the area of highconflict, researchers should consider using explicit, systematic, and compre-hensive methods for conducting review of the evidence, thus moving away

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 17

from nonsystematic literature reviews. There are now several establishedguidelines and best practices for conducting systematic review of the litera-ture to guide this endeavor (see, e.g., Paterson, Thorne, Canam, & Jillings,2001).

Finally, although a number of measures have been used to measureconflict, many have been developed exclusively for research purposes. Moreresearch is needed to empirically validate these measures to distinguish thelevel and severity of interparental conflict so parents can be referred to themost appropriate intervention modalities based on the factors related toconflict.

Acknowledgments

The scoping review was originally conducted for the Family, Children and Youth Section,Department of Justice Canada. This article has not been produced in affiliation with or withthe endorsement of the Government of Canada.

ORCID

Shely Polak http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0611-2009

References

*References marked by an asterisk reflect empirical studies reviewed and included in theresearch analysis.

*Amato, P., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 26–46. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.26

*Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith(1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 355–370.

*Amato, P. R. (2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, andemotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 75–96.

*Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journalof Marriage and Family, 72(3), 650–666. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x

*Amato, P. R., & Afifi, T. D. (2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’srelations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1),222–235. doi:10.1111/jomf.2006.68.issue-1

*Amato, P. R., & Cheadle, J. (2005). The long reach of divorce: Divorce and child well-beingacross three generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(1), 191–206. doi:10.1111/jomf.2005.67.issue-1

*Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: Ameta- analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 557–573. doi:10.2307/353560

Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, andoffspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73(3), 895–915. doi:10.1093/sf/73.3.895

18 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

*Amato, P. R., & Rezac, S. J. (1994). Contact with nonresident parents, interparental conflict,and children’s behavior. Journal of Family Issues, 15(2), 191–207. doi:10.1177/0192513X94015002003

Bacon, B. L., & McKenzie, B. (2004). Parent education after separation/divorce: Impact of thelevel of parental conflict on outcomes. Family Court Review, 42(1), 85–98. doi:10.1177/1531244504421007

*Baum, N. (2003). Divorce process variables and the co-parental relationship and parentalrole fulfillment of divorced parents. Family Process, 42(1), 117–131. doi:10.1111/famp.2003.42.issue-1

Baum, N. (2004). Typology of post divorce parental relationships and behaviors. Journal ofDivorce & Remarriage, 41(3), 53–79. doi:10.1300/J087v41n03_03

*Baum, N., & Shnit, D. (2003). Divorced parent conflict management styles. Journal ofDivorce & Remarriage, 39(3), 37–58. doi:10.1300/J087v39n03_02

*Baum, N., & Shnit, D. (2005). Self-differentiation and narcissism in divorced parents’ co-parental relationships and functioning. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42(3), 33–60.doi:10.1300/J087v42n03_03

*Bay, R. C., & Braver, S. L. (1990). Perceived control of the divorce settlement process andinterparental conflict. Family Relations, 39(4), 382–387. doi:10.2307/585217

Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological approach. American Psychology, 35, 320–335. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.4.320

*Bonach, K. (2005). Factors contributing to quality coparenting: Implications for familypolicy. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 43(3–4), 79–103. doi:10.1300/J087v43n03_05

Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorcewell-being. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 63(1), 197–212. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00197.x

*Booth, A., Scott, M. E., & King, V. (2010). Father residence and adolescent problembehavior: Are youth always better off in two-parent families? Journal of Family Issues, 31(5), 585–605. doi:10.1177/0192513X09351507

*Brandon, D. J. (2006). Can four hours make a difference? Evaluation of a parent educationprogram for divorcing parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 45(1/2), 171–185.doi:10.1300/J087v45n01_09

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature anddesign. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

*Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Caught between parents:Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development, 62(5), 1008–1029.doi:10.2307/1131149

*Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnamkmar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S. (1997).Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviours: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child andFamily Studies, 6, 233–247. doi:10.1023/A:1025006909538

Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1996). Adolescents after divorce.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

*Camara, K. A., & Resnick, G. (1988). Interparental conflict and cooperation: Factorsmoderating children’s post-divorce adjustment. In E. M. Hetherington & J. D. Arasteh(Eds.), Impact of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 169–195).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Camara, K. A., & Resnick, G. (1989). Styles of conflict resolution and cooperation betweendivorced parents: Effects on child behavior and adjustment. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 59(4), 560. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1989.tb02747.x

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 19

Cicchetti, D., & Rizley, R. (1981). Developmental perspectives on the etiology, intergenera-tional transmission, and sequelae of child maltreatment. New Directions for ChildDevelopment, 11, 31–55. doi:10.1002/cd.23219811104

Cohen, O., & Levite, Z. (2012). High-conflict divorced couples: Combining systemic andpsychodynamic perspectives. Journal of Family Therapy, 34(4), 387–402. doi:10.1111/joft.2012.34.issue-4

*Coleman, L., & Glenn, F. (2010). The varied impact of couple relationship breakdown onchildren: Implications for practice and policy. Children & Society, 24(3), 238–249.

Cummings, E. M., George, M. R., McCoy, K. P., & Davies, P. T. (2012). Interparental conflictin kindergarten and adolescent adjustment: Prospective investigation of emotional securityas an explanatory mechanism. Child Development, 83(5), 1703–1715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01807.x

Dalton, C., Carbon, J. S., & Olesen, N. (2003). High conflict divorce, violence, and abuse:Implications for custody and visitation decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4),11–33.

Davies, P. (2004). Rapid evidence assessment: A tool for policy making. London, UK:Government Social Research. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/560521/Production_of_quick_scoping_reviews_and_rapid_evidence_assessments.pdf

*Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: Anemotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.387

*Depner, C., Cannata, K., & Simon, M. (1992). Building a uniform statistical reportingsystem: A snapshot of California Family Court Services. Family and Conciliation CourtsReview, 30(2), 169–184.

Donner, M. B. (2006). Tearing the child apart. The contribution of narcissism, envy andperverse of thought to child custody wars. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23(3), 542–553.doi:10.1037/0736-9735.23.3.542

*Drapeau, S., Gagné, M., Saint-Jacques, M., Lépine, R., & Ivers, H. (2009). Post-separationconflict trajectories: A longitudinal study. Marriage & Family Review, 45(4), 353–373.doi:10.1080/01494920902821529

Eddy, B. (2007). Managing high conflict people in court. HCI Press.Eddy, B. (2010). High conflict forum: Part 1: It’s all your fault: Managing high conflict people

within a legal and clinical context. Toronto, ON: High Conflict Forum Institute.*Ehrenberg, M. F. (1996). Cooperative parenting arrangements after marital separation:

Former couples who make it work. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 26(1/2), 93–115.doi:10.1300/J087v26n01_05

Elrod, L. D. (2001). Reforming the system to protect children in high conflict custody cases.William Mitchell Law Review, 28(2), 495–551.

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce.Psychological Bulletin, 92(2), 310–330. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.310

Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation.New York, NY: Guilford Press.

*Faircloth, W. B., & Cummings, E. M. (2008). Evaluating a parent education program forpreventing the negative effects of marital conflict. Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 29, 141–156. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.12.004

*Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaola, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton, S. (1991).Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies ofyoung children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 258. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.258

20 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

*Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of theimpact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: Therole of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61(4), 1112–1123. doi:10.2307/1130879

Fidler, B. J., Bala, N., & Saini, M. A. (2013). Children who resist post-separation parentalcontact: A differential approach for legal and mental health professionals. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

*Fischer, T. F. C., De Graaf, P. M., & Kalmijn, M. (2005). Friendly and antagonistic contactbetween former spouses after divorce: Patterns and determinants. Journal of Family Issues,26(8), 1131–1163. doi:10.1177/0192513X05275435

*Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts:Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal ofMarriage and Family, 72(2), 254–266. doi:10.1111/jomf.2010.72.issue-2

Friedman, M. (2004). The so-called High-conflict couple: A closer look. The AmericanJournal of Family Therapy, 32, 101–117. doi:10.1080/01926180490424217

Gilmour, G. A. (2004). High-conflict separation and divorce: Options for consideration.Presented to Family, Children and Youth Section: Department of Justice, Canada

*Goodman, M., Bonds, D., Sandler, I., & Braver, S. (2004). Parent psycho educationalprograms and reducing the negative effects of interparental conflict following divorce.Family Court Review, 42(2), 263–279. doi:10.1177/1531244504422007

Greenberg, L. (2006). Emotion-focused therapy: A synopsis. Journal of ContemporaryPsychotherapy, 36, 87–93. doi:10.1007/s10879-006-9011-3

*Grych, J., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict form the Child’s Perspective:The children’s of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572. doi:10.2307/1131346

*Grych, J. H. (2005). Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child maladjustment:Implications for the development of prevention programs. Family Court Review, 43(1),97–108. doi:10.1111/fcre.2005.43.issue-1

Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage. New York,NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Inc.

Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, H. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. NewYork, NY: W. W. Norton.

Hopper, J. (2001). The symbolic origins of conflict in divorce. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 63((2)), 430–445. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00430.x

*Houston, C., Bala, N., & Saini, M. (2017). Crossover cases of high-conflict families involvingchild protection services: Ontario research findings and suggestions for good practices.Family Court Review, 55(3), 362–374. doi:10.1111/fcre.2017.55.issue-3

*Hutson, R. A. (2007). Child support and parental conflict in low-income families. Childrenand Youth Services Review, 29(9), 1142–1157. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.004

Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2009). A framework for addressing allegations ofdomestic violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody, 6(3–4), 169–188.doi:10.1080/15379410903084517

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involvingallegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans.Family Court Review, 46(3), 500–522. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00216.x

Johnston, J. R. (1994). High-conflict divorce. Future of Children., 4(1), 165–182. doi:10.2307/1602483

*Johnston, J. R. (1995). Research update. Family Court Review, 33(4), 415–425. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.1995.tb00386.x

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 21

Johnston, J. R. (2006). A child-centered approach to high-conflict and domestic-violencefamilies: Differential assessment and interventions. Journal of Family Studies, 12(1), 15–35.doi:10.5172/jfs.327.12.1.15

Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. E. (1988). Impasses of divorce: The dynamics and resolution offamily conflict. New York, NY: Free Press.

Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantia-tions of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43(2), 283–294.doi:10.1111/fcre.2005.43.issue-2

Johnston, J., & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child: A developmental approach tounderstanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce. New York: The FreePress.

Johnston, J. R., Roseby, V., & Kuehnle, K. (2009). the name of the child: A developmentalapproach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce. New York,NY: Springer Publishing Company.

*Kalmijn, M., & Bernasco, W. (2001). Joint and separated lifestyles in couple relationships.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(3), 639–654. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00639.x

Kelly, J. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review ofresearch. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(8), 963–973. doi:10.1097/00004583-200008000-00007

Kelly, J. B. (2012). Risk and protective factors associated with child and adolescent adjustmentfollowing separation and divorce: Social science applications. In K. Kuehnle & L. Drzod(Eds.), Parenting plan evaluations: Applied research for the family court (pp. 49–84). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk andresilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52(4), 352–362. doi:10.1111/fare.2003.52.issue-4

*Kelly, J. B., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriatecustody and access decisions for young children. Family Court Review, 38(3), 297–311.doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2000.tb00577.x

*Kline, M., Johnston, J. R., & Tschann, J. M. (1991). The long shadow of marital conflict: Amodel of children’s postdivorce adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 297–309.doi:10.2307/352900

*Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: Ameta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49(1), 25–44. doi:10.1111/fare.2000.49.issue-1

*Lansford, J. E. (2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives onPsychological Science, 4(2), 140–152. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01114.x

*Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family structure matter?A comparison of adoptive, two parent biological, single mother, stepfather, and stepmotherhouseholds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 840–851. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00840.x

Levite, Z., & Cohen, O. (2012). The tango of loving hate: Couple dynamics in high-conflictdivorce. Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(1), 46–55. doi:10.1007/s10615-011-0334-5

*Lindsey, E. W., Colwell, M. J., Frabutt, J. M., & MacKinnon-Lewis, C. (2006). Family conflictin divorced and non-divorced families: Potential consequences for boys’ friendship statusand friendship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 45–63.doi:10.1177/0265407506060177

*Long, N., Slater, E., Forehand, R., & Fauber, R. (1988). Continued high or reduced inter-parental conflict following divorce: Relation to young adolescent adjustment. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 467–469. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.3.467

22 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI

*Madden-Derdich, D. A., & Arditti, J. A. (1999). The ties that bind: Attachment betweenformer spouses. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 48(3),243–249. doi:10.2307/585633

*Madden-Derdich, D. A., Leonard, S. S., & Christopher, F. S. (1999). Boundary ambiguity andco-parental conflict after divorce: An empirical test of a family systems model of thedivorce process. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies., 48,37–45.

*Malcore, S. A., Windell, J., Seyuin, M., & Hill, E. (2010). Predictors of continued conflictafter divorce or separation: Evidence from a high-conflict group treatment program.Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 51(1), 50–64. doi:10.1080/10502550903423297

*Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & John, R. S. (2001). Coparenting: A link between maritalconflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 3.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.3

Mitcham-Smith, M., & Henry, W. J. (2007). High conflict divorce solutions: Parentingcoordination as an innovative co-parenting intervention. The Family Journal:Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15(4), 368–373. doi:10.1177/1066480707303751

*Neff, R., & Cooper, K. (2004). Parental conflict resolution: Six-, twelve-, and fifteen-monthfollow-ups of a high-conflict program. Family Court Review, 42(1), 99–114. doi:10.1177/1531244504421008

Nowlin, L. J. (2006). High conflict cases and entrenched litigations: Dealing with the case fromhell. Presentation at the 2006 Parenting Plan Conference in Austin Texas. Retrieved fromhttp://www.utcle.org/eLibrary/preview.php?asset_file_id=8474

Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitativehealth research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis (Vol. 3). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Prescott, D. E. (2006). Chronic conflict parents and group therapy as a means of intervention:A preliminary proposal. Social Work With Groups, 28(1), 81–96. doi:10.1300/J009v28n01_06

*Radovanovic, H. (1993). Parental conflict and children’s coping styles in litigation separatedfamilies: Relationships with children’s adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,21(6), 697–713. doi:10.1007/BF00916451

Regehr, C., Stern, S., & Shlonsky, A. (2007). Operationalizing evidence-based practice: Thedevelopment of an institute for evidence-based social work. Research on Social WorkPractice, 17(3), 408–416. doi:10.1177/1049731506293561

*Renner, W., & Leibetseder, M. (2000). The relationship of personal conflict and clinicalsymptoms in a high-conflict and a low-conflict subgroup: A correlational study.Psychotherapy Research, 10(3), 321–336. doi:10.1093/ptr/10.3.321

*Rutter, M. (2005). Environmentally mediated risks for psychopathology: Research strategiesand findings. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 44(1), 3–18. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000145374.45992.c9

*Saini, M. (2007). Parenting After divorce: Contributions from adult attachment and inter-parental conflict (Doctoral dissertation), University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

*Saini, M., Black, T., Lwin, K., Marshall, A., Fallon, B., & Goodman, D. (2012). Childprotection workers’ experiences of working with high-conflict separating families.Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1309–1316. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.005

*Saini, M. A., Black, T., Fallon, B., & Marshall, A. (2013). Child custody disputes within thecontext of child protection investigations: Secondary analysis of the Canadian incidentstudy of reported child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare, 92(1), 115.

JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 23

Sandler, I., Miles, J., Cookston, J., & Braver, S. (2008). Effects of father and mother parentingon children’s mental health in high-and-low conflict divorces. Family Court Review, 46(2),282–296. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00201.x

Sanford, K., & Rowatt, W. C. (2004). When is negative emotion positive for relationships? Aninvestigation of married couples and roommates. Personal Relationships, 11(3), 329–354.doi:10.1111/pere.2004.11.issue-3

*Sbarra, D. A., Emery, R. E., Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). Co-parenting conflict,nonacceptance, and depression among divorced adults: Results from a 12-year follow-upstudy of child custody mediation using multiple imputation. [clinical trial randomizedcontrolled trial research support, N.I.H., extramural research support, Non-U.S. Gov’tresearch support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.]. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 63–75.

Shifflett, K., & Cummings, E. M. (1999). A program for educating parents about the effects ofdivorce and conflict on children: An initial evaluation. Family Relations, 48(1), 79–89.doi:10.2307/585685

*Siegel, J. C., & Langford, J. S. (1998). MMPI-2 validity scales and suspected parentalalienation syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 16(4), 5–14.

Stewart, R. (2001). The early identification and streaming of cases of high-conflict separationand divorce: A review. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by theMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Retrieved February 4, 2010, fromhttp://www.justicecanada.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/repap/2001/2001_7/pdf/2001_7.pdf

Trinder, L., Kellet, J., & Swift, L. (2008). The relationship between contact and child adjust-ment in high conflict cases after divorce or separation. Child and Adolescent MentalHealth, 13(4), 181–187.

*Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate.Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333–1345. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.016

*Tschann, J. M., Johnston, J. R., & Wallerstein, J. S. (1989). Resources, stressors, andattachment as predictors of adult adjustment after divorce: A longitudinal study. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 51, 1033–1046. doi:10.2307/353214

*Vandewater, E. A., & Lansford, J. E. (1998). Influences of family structure and parentalconflict on children’s well-being. Family Relations. Special Issue: the Family as a Context forHealth and Well-Being, 47(4), 323–330. doi:10.2307/585263

*Vareschi, C. G., & Bursik, K. (2005). Attachment style differences in the parental interactionsand adaptation patterns of divorcing parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42(3–4),15–32. doi:10.1300/J087v42n03_02

*Visser, M., Finkenauer, C., Schoemaker, K., Kluwer, E., van der Rijken, R., Van Lawick, J., . . .Lamers-Winkelman, F. (2017). I’ll never forgive you: High conflict divorce, social network,and co-parenting conflicts. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(11), 1–12.

*Wade, T. J., & Pevalin, D. J. (2004). Marital transitions and mental health. Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, 45(2), 155–170. doi:10.1177/002214650404500203

*Wesolowski, K. L., Nelson, W. M., III, & Bing, N. M. (2008). Relationship components andnature of postdivorce parenting responsibilities among individuals going through adivorce. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 49, 3–4. doi:10.1080/10502550802222337

*Yeager, E. O. (2009). High-conflict couple interaction and the role of relative power.Sociology Compass, 3(4), 672–688. doi:10.1111/soco.2009.3.issue-4

24 S. POLAK AND M. SAINI