Rudd Brittany N, Poladian Ani R, Holtzworth-Munroe Amy, Applegate Amy G, D'Onofrio Brian M
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
Maurer School of Law.
J Fam Psychol. 2017 Apr;31(3):381-386. doi: 10.1037/fam0000255. Epub 2016 Nov 3.
Despite a lack of research on parent programs for separating unmarried parents, many judicial officers mandate participation. Rudd, Holtzworth-Munroe, Reyome, Applegate, and D'Onofrio (2015) conducted the only randomized controlled trial of any online parent program for separating parents, ProudToParent.org (PTP), and related court processes (e.g., having a waiting period between the establishment of paternity and the court hearing regarding child related issues vs. having the hearing the same day). They recruited a unique sample of 182 cases in a Title IV-D Court (i.e., a court for primarily low income parents) (Authorization of Appropriations, 42 U.S.C. § 651, 2013), in which paternity was previously contested but subsequently established via court-ordered genetic testing. Unexpectedly, cases assigned to PTP and a waiting period were the least likely to reach agreement at their court hearing. In the current study, we extend these results to examine the impact of the study conditions on relitigation in the year following the court hearing; only 11.2% of cases filed a motion, and 7.8% had a hearing. The group that was least likely to reach full initial agreement (i.e., assigned to PTP and the waiting period) were the most likely to relitigate. Further, controlling for study conditions, reaching a full agreement in the Title IV-D court decreased the odds of having a court hearing in the following year. Reaching agreements on the specific issues involved in such cases (e.g., custody, child support) reduced the likelihood of both motions and hearings in the year after the Title IV-D hearings. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
尽管针对分居未婚父母的家长项目缺乏研究,但许多司法人员仍强制要求参与。陆德、霍兹沃思 - 门罗、雷约姆、阿普尔盖特和多诺弗里奥(2015年)对任何在线家长项目“自豪为人父母网”(PTP)以及相关法庭程序(例如,在确定亲子关系与关于子女相关问题的法庭听证之间设置等待期与当天举行听证)进行了唯一一项随机对照试验。他们在一个第四类D法庭(即主要面向低收入父母的法庭)(《拨款授权》,《美国法典》第42编第651条,2013年)招募了182个独特案例样本,这些案例中亲子关系此前存在争议,但随后通过法庭下令的基因检测得以确定。出乎意料的是,被分配到PTP和等待期的案例在法庭听证时最不可能达成协议。在当前研究中,我们扩展了这些结果,以检验研究条件对法庭听证后一年重新诉讼的影响;只有11.2%的案例提交了动议,7.8%的案例进行了听证。最不可能达成完全初步协议的组(即被分配到PTP和等待期的组)最有可能重新诉讼。此外,在控制研究条件的情况下,在第四类D法庭达成完全协议降低了次年进行法庭听证的几率。就此类案件所涉及的具体问题(例如监护权、子女抚养费)达成协议降低了第四类D法庭听证后一年提出动议和进行听证的可能性。讨论了这些发现的意义。(《心理学文摘数据库记录》