Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2016 Feb 11;30(3):320–330. doi: 10.1037/fam0000132

Marital Violence and Coparenting Quality After Separation

Jennifer L Hardesty 1, Kimberly A Crossman 2, Lyndal Khaw 3, Marcela Raffaelli 4
PMCID: PMC4816654  NIHMSID: NIHMS749767  PMID: 26866837

Abstract

Research has identified multiple predictors of coparenting quality, but few studies have investigated how intimate partner violence (IPV) affects divorcing couples’ coparenting relationships. We addressed this question in a sample of 154 mothers with different marital IPV experiences. Mothers were recruited within four months of a divorce filing and completed two interviews three months apart. At Time 1, mothers reported on violence and coercive control during marriage, and postseparation behavioral (e.g., parental communication), emotional (e.g., anger), and intrusion (e.g., harassment) dynamics; at Time 2, they reported on coparenting quality (i.e., levels of support and conflict). In the overall sample, divorce and violence variables independently predicted coparenting quality. Mothers were then classified into three groups: no violence (NV; n = 74), situational couple violence (SCV; n = 46), or coercive controlling violence (CCV; n = 34). Of the three, coparenting quality was lowest in the CCV group. While the SCV group was similar to the NV group on most divorce-related variables, the CCV group reported more hostility at separation and placed less importance on father-child relationships. Finally, patterns of association between study variables and coparenting quality showed some parallels between the SCV and NV groups. For CCV, postseparation harassment and fear were negatively associated with coparenting quality. Findings contribute to understanding predictors of coparenting quality and support the need for individualized assessments of divorce cases with attention to IPV dynamics.

Keywords: coercive control, coparenting, divorce, intimate partner violence, postseparation dynamics

Children benefit when their parents are able to develop high quality coparenting relationships after divorce (Adamson & Pasley, 2006). Extensive theoretical and empirical work has conceptualized coparenting as multidimensional (Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). Two dimensions relevant to separated and divorced coparents are conflict and support (Maccoby, Depner, & Mnookin, 1990; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1998).1 Conflict refers to disagreements related to postseparation parenting, including negotiating structural changes (e.g., time children spend with each parent) or managing different rules across households (Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999). Support refers to the ability to offer mutual consideration to one another as parents (Masheter, 1997). Numerous correlates of coparenting quality after separation have been identified, but few studies have considered intimate partner violence (IPV; Hardesty et al., 2012). In the U.S., courts are mandated to factor IPV into custody decisions (Jaffe, Crooks, & Poisson, 2003). Because the potential to coparent may vary by type or context of marital IPV, researchers have called for a differentiated versus one-size-fits-all approach (Hardesty, Khaw, Chung, & Martin, 2008; Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, & Bala, 2008). The current longitudinal study contributes to the literature by examining multiple predictors of coparenting quality among divorcing mothers and exploring how factors differ by type of marital IPV. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine coparenting quality in a sample of mothers with different IPV experiences.

Coparenting Quality After Separation

Family scholars contend that early in the divorce process parents must begin to develop new patterns of relating and negotiate boundaries that distinguish their roles as parents from their relationship as former spouses. Family systems theory proposes that successful renegotiation of clear family boundaries is a central task for creating high quality coparenting relationships, or, as defined here, relationships with low conflict and moderate to high support (Emery & Dillon, 1994). For example, Markham, Ganong, and Coleman (2007) found that mothers with high quality coparenting relationships communicated frequently with former partners but limited communication to parental-related topics. Conversely, boundary ambiguity, or the inability to redefine family boundaries in a way that removes the former partner from a spousal role, has been linked to poor quality coparenting (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Christopher, 1999). Indeed, coparenting relationships suffer when divorced parents do not separate their personal relationship issues from coparenting ones (Markham & Coleman, 2012).

Successful renegotiation of relationships also involves an emotional divorce in which former partners withdraw their emotional investment in one another. Intense emotions, such as hostility at separation (Maccoby et al., 1990; Madden-Derdich & Arditti, 1999) and persistent anger (Jamison, Coleman, Ganong, & Feistman, 2014), may indicate a continued emotional attachment and are linked to poor quality coparenting. In contrast, positive feelings, such as friendship, have been associated with less conflict and more support (Adamsons & Pasley, 2006). Divorced parents also have fewer conflicts when they feel they can trust their former partner as a parent (Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000; Markham & Coleman, 2012). Valuing the other parent’s ongoing involvement with children also relates to better coparenting quality (Madden-Derdich & Leonard, 2000; Markham et al., 2007). Finally, studies have identified demographic correlates of poor quality coparenting, including larger families, younger children (Maccoby et al., 1990), and less time since separation (Adamsons & Pasley, 2006).

Intimate Partner Violence and Coparenting After Separation

A history of IPV is common among the minority of parents who experience high conflict during divorce (Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005). Presumably, these parents are among those who have the most difficulty coparenting. Nonetheless, IPV is likely not limited to those divorcing parents identified as “high conflict,” as postseparation dynamics vary among relationships with IPV. Indeed, studies suggest different dynamics emerge based on type of marital IPV. Johnson (2008) identified two main types of IPV – coercive controlling violence and situational couple violence – that are distinguished by the context within which violence occurs. In coercive controlling violence, physical violence is embedded in a larger pattern of nonviolent behaviors aimed at maintaining control over a partner’s daily life. Situational couple violence is not embedded in a larger relationship-wide pattern of controlling behaviors. Instead, this violence occurs in specific situations, such as escalating arguments. Studies document differences between these IPV types in dynamics and consequences (e.g., coercive controlling violence tends to be more frequent and severe; Johnson, 2008). However, because the nature of the violence within each type can vary, the types are not defined by frequency or severity of violence but rather by the control context in which the violence occurs (Johnson & Leone, 2005).

Two qualitative studies of divorced mothers’ coparenting relationships with abusive former husbands found differences by type of marital IPV (Hardesty & Ganong, 2006; Hardesty et al., 2008). Developing clear boundaries between parental and former spouse relationships was most challenging for mothers who experienced coercive controlling violence. Controlling former husbands continued to intrude upon mothers’ lives, often in the form of harassment, but also by creating a persistent climate of fear and threat, consistent with other studies that have also documented postseparation harassment, fear, and threat after women leave abusive and controlling partners (Bowen, 2011; Ford-Gilboe, Wuest, & Merritt-Gray, 2005). In contrast, mothers in Hardesty et al. (2008) who experienced situational couple violence had former husbands who reportedly were better able to develop boundaries. Compared to the former group, these mothers reported being able to coparent effectively after divorce despite prior violence. To our knowledge, these associations have not been analyzed in a quantitative framework.

Conceptual Framework

Consistent with family systems theory, the above literature demonstrates that the behavioral and emotional dynamics of the early divorce process predict coparenting quality. In the current study, behavioral dynamics include the clarity of boundaries between parental and former spouse relationships. Unclear boundaries, which have been associated with poorer coparenting quality, are indicated by more boundary ambiguity, less parental communication, and more nonparental communication. Emotional dynamics in the current study refer to the extent of emotional attachments or intense emotions. Less effective emotions, which have been associated with poorer coparenting quality, include more hostility, more anger, less positive feelings toward the former partner in general, and less trust, as evidenced by less positive feelings toward the former partner as a father and less value placed on ongoing father-child relationships. Based on prior violence research, postseparation intrusion dynamics are also expected to predict coparenting quality. Consistent with Ford-Gilboe et al. (2005), we conceptualize postseparation intrusion as unwanted interference into mothers’ everyday lives. Greater intrusion is indicated by more harassment, fear, and perceived threat of future harm.

Finally, integrating Johnson’s (2008) typology serves to contextualize the process of developing coparenting relationships. As posited by Hardesty and colleagues (2012), postseparation dynamics and the quality of coparenting relationships will be influenced by type of IPV experienced in marriage. To investigate this, an examination of coercive control is necessary. Coercive control, which is central to distinguishing between Johnson’s types of IPV, is defined as a pattern of behaviors aimed at regulating and dominating a partner’s daily life (Hardesty et al., 2015). This narrow definition restricts the assessment of coercive control to behaviors aimed at domination and isolation, such as making a partner account for her whereabouts, interfering with her relationships with family and friends, or restricting her use of the phone (Tolman, 1992). Although some studies have used broader definitions, including emotionally or verbally abusive behaviors (e.g., insulting or criticizing, name calling, shouting or swearing; e.g., Adkins & Kamp Dush, 2010; Johnson & Leone, 2005), the current study used a narrow approach to avoid the risk of conflating controlling tactics with other types of behaviors (Frye, Manganello, Campbell, Walton-Moss, & Wilt, 2006). As Tolman (1992) explained, verbally and emotionally abusive behaviors may occur in relationships with or without coercive control; tactics of dominance and isolation, however, are particularly characteristic of the motive to control one’s partner.

The Current Study

Three research questions (and associated hypotheses) were addressed:

  1. What factors predict coparenting quality among mothers early in the divorce process?

    We hypothesized that presence of marital violence and greater coercive control; unclear boundaries (i.e., more boundary ambiguity, less parental communication, more nonparental communication), less effective emotions (i.e., more hostility, more anger, less positive feelings toward former partner in general and as a father, less valuing of father-child relationships) and greater intrusion (i.e., more harassment, fear, and perceived threat) after separation would be associated with poor coparenting quality at the bivariate level. We also conducted multivariate analyses to explore which of these variables had unique associations with coparenting quality.

  2. Do coparenting quality and postseparation dynamics differ by type of marital IPV?

    We hypothesized that mothers who experienced coercive controlling violence during marriage would report the least clear boundaries, least effective emotions, and greatest intrusion compared to mothers who experienced situational couple violence or no violence in marriage.

  3. Do patterns of associations between postseparation behavioral, emotional, and intrusion dynamics and coparenting quality differ by type of marital IPV?

    Based on the expectation that IPV during marriage creates a context that continues to affect the relationship between former partners, we explored whether different patterns of association between predictors and coparenting (examined in the first research question) would emerge among mothers with different types of marital IPV.

Methods

Data were from two studies of mothers in the process of divorce. The first study, conducted in 2009–2010, used the same inclusion criteria, recruitment methods, and assessment as the second study that began in 2010. The study had IRB approval and numerous precautions were taken to ensure mothers’ safety and privacy. In-person interviews (two in the first study, five in the second study) were conducted with each participant at three-month intervals.

Potential participants identified via public records in a large Midwest county were sent a recruitment letter if they had a divorce filing within the past four months. Additional inclusion criteria were that they (a) had at least one child under age 18; (b) had custody of their child(ren) at least 25% of the time; (c) were physically separated from their former partner for less than three years; and (d) could understand and speak English. Letters were sent to 804 women named in a divorce filing between September 2009 and December 2012, and 24% (N = 190) completed the first interview. Of the 609 non-participants, 50 were eligible and interested but did not show up for scheduled interviews or respond to scheduling efforts; 36 declined to participate; 27 did not meet the criteria; and 496 never responded to recruitment efforts (we are unable to determine whether the latter group met the criteria for inclusion or received the recruitment letter).

Of the 170 mothers who completed the first two interviews, 154 had complete data on relevant measures of coparenting and comprise the analytic sample. Mothers in the analytic sample were between the ages of 21.6 and 54.7 years (M = 35.85, SD = 7.14) and predominantly White (n = 126, 81.8%). Seventeen mothers (11.0%) identified as Black or African American, 5 (3.2%) as Asian or Asian American, 5 (3.2%) as biracial, and 1 (0.6%) as Latino or Hispanic. Mothers had between one and four biological or adopted children with their former partner (M = 1.75, SD = 0.73) and their youngest child was between < 1 to 17 years old (M = 5.84, SD = 4.17). At the first interview (Time 1), mothers had been physically separated from their former partner for <1 month to 34 months (M = 8.12, SD= 6.82); 52.6% had been physically separated for 6 months or less and 79% for a year or less. Only 30 (19.5%) divorces were finalized at Time 1 and 60 (39%) were finalized at Time 2. Of the minority of mothers with a court-approved permanent custody agreement at Time 1 (27.3%; n = 42), most reported sole physical custody (71.4%; n = 30) of at least one child. The length of marriages to former partners ranged from < 1 month to 27.42 years (M = 9.89 years, SD = 5.78). The majority of mothers were employed full time (n = 91, 59.1%), 29 (18.8%) were employed part time, 17 (11.0%) were involuntarily unemployed (e.g., due to disability, difficulty finding a job, or being laid off), and 17 (11.0%) were voluntarily unemployed (e.g., student). Eighteen mothers (11.7%) had a high school degree or less, 54 (35.0%) had some college, 57 (37.0%) had a Bachelor’s degree, and 25 (16.2%) had a Master’s or Doctoral degree. Sample demographics in each study were comparable.

Measures

Means and standard deviations for the study variables are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables in Full Sample of Divorcing Mothers (N = 154)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. T2 Copar quality --
2. T1 Copar quality .61** --
3. Boundary ambiguity −.08 −.10 --
4. Parental comm. .35** .51** .21** --
5. Nonparental comm. .15 .28** .39** .48** --
6. Hostility −.22** −.32** −.01 −.09 .02 --
7. Anger −.27** −.28** .27** −.15 .04 .06 --
8. Positive att.-general .38** .38** .36** .37** .41** −.15 −.28** --
9. Positive att.-father .49** .60** .02 .50** .27** −.19* −.34** .41** --
10. Importance of father-child rel. .27** .51** .26** .44** .24** −.32** −.34** .41** .52** --
11. Fear −.27** −.38** .00 −.17* −.05 .36** .01 −.12 −.23** .27** --
12. Harassment −.31** −.37** .06 −.14 .08 .35** .11 −.10 −.23** −.16* .59** --
13. Perceived threat −.48** −.52** .02 −.29** −.08 .31** .23** −.20* −.37** −.39** .66** .66** --
14. Presence of marital violence1 −.20* −.27** .11 −.10 .10 .35** .16 −.00 −.18* −.15 .41** .45** .39** ----
15. Freq. of marital violence −.08 −.24** −.03 −.09 .05 .19* .27** −.13 −.22** −.29** .18* .35** .31** .53** ----
16. Freq. of severe marital violence −.12 −.23** −.06 −.08 .00 .16* .28** −.17* −.28** −.31** .15 .19* .24** .38** .88** --
17. Coercive control in marriage −.20* −.35** −.11 −.11 .05 .38** .07 −.13 −.17* −.28** .36** .42** .40** .41** .35** .31** --
Mean 3.21 3.16 2.24 2.50 1.70 2.82 2.05 2.65 3.67 4.46 0.67 5.11 1.55 55% 7.14 2.32 15.35
Standard Deviation 0.78 0.77 0.54 0.96 0.50 1.54 0.89 1.06 1.04 1.04 0.97 6.41 0.61 n/a 12.85 5.88 6.91
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01.

1

Coded dichotomously as 0 (no violence) or 1 (violence).

Coparenting Quality After Separation (Times 1 and 2)

Using the Quality of Coparental Communication scale (Ahrons, 1981), mothers rated how often 6 supportive (e.g., “How often would you say your former partner is a resource to you in raising the children?”) or conflictual (e.g., “How often is the conversation stressful or tense?”) coparenting interactions had occurred using a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). The conflict items were reverse scored, and responses were averaged; higher scores indicate higher coparenting quality (alpha = 0.83). At Time 1, mothers reported on coparenting quality since separation; at Time 2 (approximately 3 months after the first interview) they reported on interactions since Time 1. Coparenting quality at Time 2 was the outcome measure in analyses.

Marital Violence and Coercive Control (Time 1)

Violence during marriage was assessed using eleven items from the physical assault subscale of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) and two items from a modified version of the CTS2 sexual coercion subscale (Goodman, Dutton, Weinfurt, & Cook, 2003). Mothers reported whether they ever experienced each act (e.g., hit, choked). Nine of the 13 acts are considered severe violence (Straus et al., 1996). Three indicators of marital violence were computed: presence (ever experienced at least one act); frequency, and severity during marriage. For frequency, response items were “once,” “twice,” “3–5 times,” “6–10 times,” or “10 or more times.” Response ranges were averaged (e.g., 3–5 times = 4) and 10 or more times was treated as 10. Responses were summed to create a maximum possible score of 130. A similar approach was used to create a score for frequency of nine severe acts, with a maximum possible score of 90.

Coercive control during marriage was measured with the Dominance-Isolation Subscale of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1992). Respondents rated how often they experienced 7 acts (e.g., “he monitored my time and made me account for my whereabouts,” “he interfered in my relationships with other family members,” “he tried to keep me from doing things to help myself”) during the year before separation, from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Responses were summed, with higher scores indicating higher frequency of coercive controlling behaviors (alpha = 0.85).

Postseparation Behavioral Dynamics (Time 1)

The Boundary Ambiguity Scale (Boss, Greenberg, & Pearce-McCall, 1990) was used to measure the degree to which structural reorganization and family redefinition remained unclear since separation. Mothers responded to 22 items (e.g., “I find myself asking my former partner for advice about the areas he used to handle”) from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Responses were averaged with higher scores indicating higher boundary ambiguity (alpha = 0.79).

The Content of Coparental Interaction (Ahrons, 1981) scale was used to assess parental and nonparental communication between former partners. The parental subscale focuses on communication related to childrearing obligations and responsibilities (10 items; e.g., discussing finances in regard to children). The nonparental subscale assesses communication that is not concerned with childrearing (14 items; e.g., talking about personal problems). Mothers reported the frequency (1 = never to 5 = always) with which they engaged in parental (alpha = 0.92) and nonparental (alpha = 0.85) communication with former partners since separation.

Postseparation Emotional Dynamics (Time 1)

The degree of hostility at separation was measured by one item (“On a scale of 1 to 5 with one being not at all hostile and 5 being extremely hostile, how would you describe your initial separation?”).

Three subscales (16 items) from the Attitudes and Feelings toward Former Spouse measure (Ahrons, 1981) assessed anger, positive feelings toward former partner in general, and positive feelings toward former partner as a father. Mothers indicated how often since separation they felt in certain ways (e.g., “I blame him for the divorce,” “I care about his welfare”) on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Responses for each subscale were averaged, with higher scores indicating greater anger (alpha = 0.90), more positive feelings toward former partner in general (alpha = 0.83) or as a father (alpha = 0.90).

One item was created to assess mothers’ perceptions of the importance of the father-child relationship: “How important is it to you that your children maintain a relationship with their father?” Mothers responded from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important).

Postseparation Intrusion Dynamics (Time 1)

The Harassment in Abusive Relationships: A Self-Report Scale (HARASS; Sheridan, 2001) was used to assess harassment. Mothers indicated how often their former partner engaged in 23 behaviors since they separated (e.g., “sits in his car outside my home”) on a scale of 0 (never) to 4 (very frequently). Responses were summed to create a maximum possible score of 92; higher scores indicate more frequent harassment (alpha = 0.92).

Fear was assessed by one item (“Since you physically separated, how often have you been afraid of your former partner?”), rated from 0 (never) to 4 (very frequently).

Perceived threat of future harm was assessed using the IPV Threat Appraisal (Dutton, Goodman, Lennig, Murphy, & Kaltman, 2006). This scale assesses mothers’ perceptions of the likelihood of 16 violent, nonviolent, and child-related threats (e.g., physical assault, emotional harm to children) by former partners occurring within the next three months on a scale of 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). Responses were averaged for a total possible score of 5, with a higher score indicating higher perceived threat (alpha = 0.88).

Demographic variables (Time 1)

Mothers reported their age, number of children with their former partner, children’s ages, length of their marriage, amount of time since separation, and whether their divorce had been finalized. Mothers also reported their race (coded as White or not White), employment status (coded as employed full time or not employed full time), and level of education (coded as Bachelor’s degree or higher or less than Bachelor’s degree).

Plan of Analysis

All analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 22. Variables were screened for outliers and to ensure they met assumptions regarding normality. All variables had acceptable distributions. Following this, analyses were conducted to examine each research question.

Research Question 1

Several analyses were conducted to test the unique and combined role of the hypothesized set of predictors on Time 2 coparenting quality. First, correlations were computed to test bivariate associations among study variables (Pearson’s correlations for continuous variables and point-biserial correlations for dichotomous variables). Consistent with Johnson’s (2008) typology of IPV, marital dynamics were operationalized as presence/absence of violence and frequency of coercive control; for descriptive purposes, correlations were also computed for frequency and severity of violence in marriage. Next, stepwise regression analysis was conducted. Coparenting quality assessed at Time 2 was the outcome variable. At Step 1, Time 1 coparenting quality was entered as a control; marital violence and coercive control were entered at Step 2; and postseparation behavioral, emotional, and intrusion dynamics were entered at Step 3. Because of indications of multicollinearity issues in preliminary analyses, two variables that were correlated with coparenting quality were excluded from multivariate analyses. Both were single items measures created for the present study (importance of father-child relationship and fear after separation). These items were highly correlated with established measures tapping similar constructs (see Table 1), so we maintained the established measures.

Research Question 2

The second research question focused on whether mothers with different types of marital IPV differed on the study variables. Consistent with prior literature, violence groups were created based on mothers’ reports of violence (on the CTS2) and coercive control (on the PMWI; see Hardesty et al., 2015, for a review and detailed description). Mothers were classified into “violence” if they reported 1 or more acts of violence during marriage on the CTS2 and “no violence” if they reported 0 acts on the CTS2. Consistent with other studies (e.g., Leone, 2011), patterns of coercive control were identified by computing a hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward’s method) of items in the control measure (PMWI). A two-cluster solution (high controlling, low controlling) appeared optimal. Ranges of values for each solution were examined to determine an appropriate cutoff score to distinguish high from low coercive control (i.e., a score of 19 or higher; see Hardesty et al., 2015). Using this cutoff, mothers who experienced violence were classified as either situational couple violence (i.e., presence of violence plus low controlling cluster; SCV; n = 46) or coercive controlling violence (i.e., presence of violence plus high controlling cluster; CCV; n = 34). Mothers who did not experience marital violence were classified as no violence (NV; n = 74). Prior analyses has established that these groups differ in conceptually meaningful ways (Hardesty et al., 2015).

The three IPV groups were compared on study variables by conducting a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to account for correlations among dependent variables. Time 2 coparenting quality, and postseparation behavioral, emotional, and intrusion variables (Time 1) were the dependent variables; IPV group was the between-subjects factor; and two demographic variables on which the IPV groups differed (age and education) were entered as statistical controls (covariates). Independent samples t-tests were used to compare the CCV and SCV groups on frequency and severity of marital violence because the NV group, by definition, did not experience violence. Analyses of group differences did not include presence of marital violence and frequency of coercive control because these variables were used to form the groups.

Research Question 3

Bivariate correlations were computed within each IPV group (NV, SCV, CCV) to examine patterns of association for postseparation behavioral, emotional, and intrusion dynamics at Time 1 with coparenting quality at Time 2. Group differences between each pair of correlations were tested using an on-line calculator (Soper, 2015).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Associations between the study variables and the following demographic variables were examined: mother’s age, race, employment status, and education; number and youngest age of children; length of marriage; time since separation; and whether the divorce was finalized. None of these variables were significantly associated with the outcome variable, Time 2 coparenting quality (ps > .05). Some significant correlations were found between demographic and predictor variables, so a regression model including demographic controls was tested. The results were essentially identical to the model that did not include demographic controls, and none of the coefficients for the demographic variables were significant. Therefore, to conserve power in these analyses, we present models without controls.

Research Question 1: Predictors of Coparenting Quality Among Divorcing Mothers

Bivariate correlations are displayed in Table 1. The following variables assessed at Time 1 were negatively correlated with coparenting quality at Time 2: presence of violence and frequency of coercive control in marriage, hostility, anger, harassment, fear, and perceived threat of future harm. Variables that were positively associated with coparenting quality were: frequency of parental communication, positive feelings toward the former partner in general and as a father, and importance of father-child relationship. Frequency/severity of marital violence, boundary ambiguity, and nonparental communication were not significantly correlated with later coparenting quality. Coparenting quality at Time 1 was associated with Time 2 coparenting quality (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Linear Regressions Examining Predictors of Time 2 Coparenting Quality in Full Sample of Divorcing Mothers (N = 154)

Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
B SE β B SE B B SE β
Coparenting quality (T1) 0.62 0.07 0.61** 0.62 0.07 0.61** 0.35 0.10 0.34**
Presence of violence in marriage −0.06 0.11 −0.04 0.01 0.12 0.00
Coercive control in marriage 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05
Boundary ambiguity −0.12 0.12 −0.08
Parental communication 0.02 0.07 0.03
Nonparental communication −0.11 0.12 −0.07
Hostility 0.00 0.04 0.00
Anger −0.01 0.07 −0.01
Positive feelings – general 0.15 0.06 0.21*
Positive feelings – as father 0.10 0.07 0.12
Harassment 0.01 0.01 0.05
Perceived threat −0.37 0.13 −0.27**
Model Statistics R2 = .37, F = 87.29** R2 = .37, F = 28.88** R2 = .46, F = 9.69**
Step Statistics R2ch = .00, Fch = 0.16 R2ch =.09, Fch = 2.44*
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01.

Variables that did not present issues of multicollinearity were included in a single regression analysis. The first step included Time 1 coparenting quality (to control for initial levels of this variable), the second step marital violence and coercive control, and the third step indicators of postseparation behavioral, emotional, and intrusion dynamics. As shown in Table 2, Time 1 coparenting quality was significant on initial entry and remained significant at all subsequent steps; the overall model was significant at all three steps.

At the second step, the addition of marital violence and coercive control did not account for a significant proportion of the variance in Time 2 coparenting quality. The addition of postseparation variables at Step 3 contributed additional explanatory power to the model. In the final model, after controlling for coparenting quality at Time 1, two variables were uniquely associated with Time 2 coparenting quality: positive feelings toward the former partner in general (positively) and perceived threat of future harm (negatively).

Research Question 2: Differences in Divorcing Mothers’ Experiences by IPV Group

We turn next to an examination of differences between mothers with different experiences of marital IPV2. The MANOVA comparing the three IPV groups on the study variables showed a significant effect for group, F = 3.73, df = 24, p < .001. Descriptive statistics and results of group comparisons are shown in Table 3. Coparenting quality was significantly lower in the CCV group than in the NV group (the SCV group did not differ significantly from the other two groups). No significant differences were found on postseparation behavioral dynamics, but differences in postseparation emotional and intrusion dynamics were found. In terms of emotional dynamics, mothers in the CCV group reported more hostility at separation and placed less importance on maintaining the father-child relationship than mothers in the other two groups; they also reported less positive feelings towards their former partner as a father than the NV group. Group differences on postseparation intrusion showed a different pattern, with the CCV group reporting higher levels of postseparation harassment, fear, and perceived threat of future harm than the other two groups, and the SCV group reporting higher levels on these variables than the NV group.

Table 3.

Differences Between IPV Groups on Coparenting Quality, Divorce, and Violence Variables

Variable Group 1: No Violence (n = 74)
Group 2: Situational Couple Violence (n = 46)
Group 3: Coercive Controlling Violence (n = 34)
Tests of Group Differences
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F
Time 2 Coparenting qualitya 3.37 (0.76)3 3.15 (0.86) 2.95 (0.62)1 4.29*
Postseparation Behavioral Dynamics
 Boundary ambiguity 2.18 (0.53) 2.40 (0.53) 2.16 (0.52) 2.60
 Parental communication 2.60 (0.95) 2.47 (0.95) 2.33 (1.01) 1.20
 Nonparental communication 1.65 (0.46) 1.73 (0.53) 1.78 (0.57) 0.44
Postseparation Emotional Dynamics
 Hostility 2.27 (1.38)2,3 2.85 (1.49) 1,3 4.00 (1.30) 1,2 19.12**
 Anger 1.91 (0.79) 2.16 (0.93) 2.22 (0.89) 1.54
 Positive feelings – general 2.65 (1.04) 2.77 (1.02) 2.48 (1.17) 0.70
 Positive feelings – as father 3.86 (0.94)3 3.56 (1.08) 3.40 (1.13) 1 3.83*
 Importance of father-child relationship 4.62 (0.84)3 4.63 (0.90)3 3.88 (1.29)1,2 5.45**
Postseparation Intrusion Dynamics
 Harassment 2.09 (3.51)2,3 6.50 (6.29)1,3 9.79 (7.97)1,2 21.80**
 Fear 0.26 (0.52)2,3 0.78 (0.94)1,3 1.41 (1.26)1,2 24.44**
 Perceived threat 1.31 (0.38)2,3 1.64 (0.60)1,3 1.98 (0.76)1,2 18.82**
Characteristics of Marital Violence t
 Frequency of violence n/a 10.91 (13.27) 15.62 (15.44) −1.46
 Severity of violence n/a 3.33 (6.72) 5.06 (6.88) −1.13
Open in a new tab

Note: Group differences in postseparation dynamics were examined using MANOVA (adjusting for age and education). For ease of interpretation, unadjusted means are displayed. For variables with significant F-tests, numeric superscripts indicate significant differences between the group in that column and the group designated by the superscript (p < 0.05). Differences between the SCV and CCV group on marital violence characteristics were evaluated by t-tests (by definition, the NV group did not experience any marital violence.

a

Coparenting quality was assessed at Time 2; all other variables were assessed at Time 1.

*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01.

The two violence groups did not differ significantly on frequency and severity of marital violence; however, to ensure that group differences reported above were due to the coercive control context rather than differences in violence, post-hoc tests were conducted to compare the two violence groups while covarying frequency and severity of marital violence. Four of the five variables remained significant and one became marginally significant (harassment after separation), suggesting that these group differences indeed reflect the context of control.

Research Question 3: Correlates of Coparenting Quality Within IPV Groups

The previous set of analyses identified differences in mothers’ postseparation experiences based on marital IPV group. Within-group analyses explored whether the IPV groups showed different patterns of association between study variables and Time 2 coparenting (Table 4). Mirroring the results for the overall sample, three variables were correlated with coparenting quality in all three IPV groups (frequency of parental communication and positive feelings toward the former partner as a father, positively, and perceived threat of future harm, negatively). In the NV and SCV groups, anger toward the former partner was negatively, and positive feelings toward the former partner in general positively, associated with coparenting quality. Two associations were significant only in the CCV group: harassment and fear after separation were both negatively correlated with coparenting quality. Finally, importance of the father-child relationship was positively correlated with coparenting quality only among mothers who had experienced SCV. Post-hoc tests were conducted to compare the magnitude of significant correlations across groups; none of these pairwise comparisons were significant.

Table 4.

Bivariate Correlations between Time 2 Coparenting Quality and Study Variables Within Violence Group

Variable No Violence (n = 74) Situational Couple Violence (n = 46) Coercive Controlling Violence (n = 34)
Postseparation Behavioral Dynamics
 Boundary ambiguity −0.05 −0.12 −0.08
 Parental communication 0.32** 0.29* 0.48**
 Nonparental communication 0.16 0.22 0.17
Postseparation Emotional Dynamics
 Hostility −0.17 −0.17 −0.04
 Anger −0.28* −0.31* −0.09
 Positive feelings – general 0.45* 0.36* 0.30
 Positive feelings – as father 0.52** 0.40** 0.49**
 Importance of father-child relationship 0.21 0.34* 0.20
Postseparation Intrusion Dynamics
 Harassment −0.19 −0.22 −0.38*
 Fear −0.08 −0.21 −0.38*
 Perceived threat −0.42** −0.49** −0.51**
Characteristics of Marital Violence
 Frequency of violence n/a −0.13 −0.05
 Severity of violence n/a −.001 −0.13
Open in a new tab
*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01.

Discussion

In a recent Think Tank report convened by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, researchers, legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers concluded that there is no one-size fits-all approach to parenting after separation, even among parents with a history of IPV (Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014). Rather than assuming IPV always precludes the potential for coparenting after separation, case-specific assessments of the nature and context of IPV and ongoing risks after separation are necessary (Ver Steegh, 2004). Thus, research is needed to assist professionals as they carefully weigh mothers’ and children’s individual safety needs with potential benefits of coparenting. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to examine what factors predict coparenting quality among divorcing mothers with and without a history of IPV and how patterns of association differ by IPV type. As proposed by Hardesty et al. (2012), we advance existing knowledge by simultaneously examining predictors from both the divorce and violence literatures, as these literatures have remained largely distinct on the topic of coparenting after separation. Strengths of our study include a longitudinal design using a sample of mothers with diverse IPV experiences early in the divorce process, when conflict in general divorcing samples and risks associated with IPV tend to be elevated (Walker, Logan, Jordan, & Campbell, 2004).

Predicting Coparenting Quality

Our first goal was to conduct an integrated examination of associations between coparenting quality, marital violence and control, and postseparation behavioral, emotional, and intrusion dynamics. Bivariate and multivariate analyses clarified the unique and combined predictive role of multiple divorce and violence-related variables identified in prior theory and research, supporting the need to integrate variables across these bodies of literature (Hardesty et al., 2012). In bivariate analyses, divorce-related predictors of coparenting quality, such as hostility and positive feelings, were similar to those reported in past research, with the exception of boundary ambiguity and communication about nonparental topics. Family systems theory posits that successful boundary renegotiation is central to developing quality coparenting relationships. Indeed, studies document the importance of developing boundaries that clearly differentiate former spousal from coparental relationships (e.g., Khaw & Hardesty, 2015; Madden-Derdich et al., 1999). However, in our sample of mothers who were early in the divorce process, boundary ambiguity was not associated with coparenting quality. Frequency of communication about nonparental topics, which may reflect unclear boundaries, also was not associated with later coparenting quality. In contrast, emotional dynamics were associated with higher quality coparenting relationships three months later.

In multivariate models that controlled for Time 1 coparenting quality, positive feelings toward the former partner in general was the only divorce-related variable that independently predicted coparenting quality. The results support those of Jamison et al. (2014), in which resilient coparents were able to think about their former partners in somewhat positive terms even if they did not like them. Doing so helped them remain focused on their children rather than unresolved former spouse issues. Researchers might consider whether emotional shifts or renegotiations of internal boundaries are more relevant to coparenting quality early in the divorce process than Boss et al.’s (1990) conceptualization of boundary ambiguity as a structural renegotiation of boundaries. Fewer than a fifth of our sample had a finalized divorce at Time 1. Longitudinal data are needed to examine whether boundary ambiguity and its effects on coparenting quality become more prominent sometime after divorces are finalized.

Only one violence-related variable was independently significant in the multivariate model – perceived threat of future harm. Based on inspection of means, most mothers reported some perceived threat of future harm. As Nielsen, Hardesty, and Raffaelli (2015) posited, divorce transitions may heighten a sense of threat for all divorcing parents (e.g., to lose money or the children), not just those with IPV histories. Thus, threat appraisal measures may not differentiate mothers’ needs based on IPV as much as tap into the fears common to all divorcing parents. Future qualitative studies with mixed samples are needed to better understand the context and meanings attached to perceived threat for mothers with and without a history of IPV.

Examining How Type of Marital IPV Relates to Postseparation Dynamics

Our second goal was to examine how postseparation dynamics differed by type of marital IPV. Consistent with Johnson’s (2008) typology of IPV, the first set of analyses conducted to address this goal involved comparing mothers who had experienced different combinations of violence and coercive control during marriage. As hypothesized, coparenting quality differed significantly by IPV group and was lowest for the CCV group. For these mothers, postseparation dynamics were characterized by higher levels of hostility and intrusion (i.e., harassment, fear, and threat). The control context present during marriage appeared to persist after separation, which is consistent with other studies (Markham & Coleman, 2012; Ornstein & Rickne, 2013). Not surprisingly, these mothers had less positive feelings toward their former partner as a father and placed less importance on the father-child relationship. Nonetheless, mothers across IPV groups did not differ in levels of anger or positive feelings toward their former partner in general. Thus, the heightened negative emotions toward fathers/father-child relationships among mothers in the CCV group likely reflect persistent intrusion dynamics and safety concerns (Khaw & Hardesty, 2015). Custody evaluators and legal professionals may assume that mothers who are resistant to coparenting are “unfriendly parents.” Indeed, in one study, custody evaluators’ perceptions of mothers’ demeanor (hostile vs. receptive to coparenting) was the only variable that consistently predicted their custody recommendations (Hardesty, Hans, Haselschwerdt, Khaw, & Crossman, 2015). Practitioners must remain open to the fact that resistance to coparenting may represent a reasonable reaction to violence and control.

We also explored whether predictors of coparenting quality differed among mothers with different types of marital IPV. Although the findings must be considered tentative due to sample size limitations, there were indications that associations between coparenting quality and divorce-related variables within the SCV group were more similar to those in the NV group than the CCV group. For example, anger and positive feelings toward former partner were associated with coparenting quality among NV and SCV mothers but not those in the CCV group. This may lend support to prior claims that parents with a history of SCV may benefit from traditional approaches to supporting divorcing parents (e.g., parent education classes) or with high conflict (e.g., divorce mediation) if threats to safety do not persist after separation (Hardesty et al., 2008; Jaffe et al., 2008). In contrast, results suggest unique dynamics and intervention needs among the CCV group.

Harassment and fear after separation were significantly associated with poor coparenting quality for the CCV group. According to Ford-Gilboe et al. (2005), mothers’ energies after separation from violent partners went toward managing and limiting ongoing intrusion. Reports of harassment and fear should be red flags for professionals, as they are associated with risks for mothers and their children that prevent safe and healthy coparenting relationships. Persistent harassing behaviors and the production of fear represent an extension of the control dynamics from marriage. In these situations, the communication and contact necessary for coparenting provide sanctioned opportunities for abusers to continue controlling their former wives (Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014). Furthermore, fear may silence mothers in these situations, leading them to agree to potentially unsafe coparenting arrangements to avoid angering their former partners (Pruett & DiFonzo, 2014). For these reasons, individual assessments, rather than traditional divorce interventions, are critical and should consider postseparation harassment and fear in addition to assessing the dynamics of IPV during marriage. Unfortunately, as Markham and Coleman (2012) point out, group interventions, such as parent education classes, often overlook IPV dynamics by providing the same message to all divorcing parents about the benefits of coparenting.

Study results should be considered in the context of several limitations. First, although the sample size was sufficient for analyses using the overall sample, we were limited in our ability to explicate within-group patterns of association. Future research that examines the moderating role of IPV group (e.g., in a regression framework) is needed to address this limitation. Second, the extent to which our sample is representative is unknown. However, by recruiting a nonclinical sample using public divorce records, we were able to capture diverse IPV experiences. Third, results are based on mothers’ reports and thus do not reflect fathers’ perspectives, which are important to consider in future studies of coparenting dynamics. Reliance on data collected from a single reporter also increases the likelihood that associations among variables will be inflated by shared method variance. However, the longitudinal design, use of validated measures, and collection of data through in-person interviews bolster confidence in the validity of findings. Finally, other dimensions of coparenting quality, such as triangulation or placing children in the middle of parental conflict (Adamsons & Pasley, 2006), were not considered in the current study.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the study makes important contributions. Poor quality coparenting relationships have been associated with negative effects for mothers and children (e.g., Fabricius & Luecken, 2007; Whiteside & Becker, 2000). Consistent with Hardesty et al. (2012), we demonstrated that both divorce- and violence-related perceptions and experiences influence mothers’ coparenting relationships with their former partners. For example, results of multivariate analyses with the full sample highlight the importance of positive feelings toward fathers in general (divorce variable) and perceived threat of future harm (violence variable) for predicting coparenting quality. A noteworthy finding was that neither the presence of violence nor frequency of coercive control in marriage was independently associated with coparenting quality in regression analyses, but that groups formed by combining these two variables showed multiple differences. These results indicate that important information may be missed when IPV context is ignored. With CCV, for example, harassment and fear after separation may be important IPV dynamics to consider when predicting coparenting quality. Taken as a whole, study findings contribute to understanding predictors of coparenting quality early in the divorce process and support the need for individualized assessments that take into account the type of IPV experienced in marriage.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [R21HD061559A], the Department of Human Development and Family Studies and Office of Research in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Hatch Grant 793-348 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Footnotes

1

Although not examined in the current study, triangulation is a third dimension widely considered in studies of coparenting among married or cohabiting parents (e.g., Baril, Crouter, & McHale, 2007; Margolin, Gordis, & John, 2001; Teubert & Pinquart, 2010). Consistent with the majority of studies of separated or divorced coparents, we focused on conflict and support. Examining triangulation in divorcing parents is an important direction for future research (for examples, see Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991 and Macie & Stolberg, 2003).

2

Preliminary analysis indicated that the three IPV groups differed on two demographic variables. Mothers in the CCV group were younger (M = 31.82 years; SD = 6.55) than the NV (M = 36.62 years; SD = 6.89) and SCV (M = 37.57 years; SD = 6.96) groups, F (2,153) = 7.84, p = 0.00. The groups also differed in educational attainment, with the NV group (60.8%) most likely to have a Bachelor’s degree or higher, followed by the SCV (56.5%) and CCV group (32.4%), X2 (2, N = 154) = 7.86, p = 0.02. Therefore, we controlled for age and education in analyses comparing IPV groups on divorce and violence variables.

Contributor Information

Jennifer L. Hardesty, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Kimberly A. Crossman, Southern Illinois University

Lyndal Khaw, Montclair State University.

Marcela Raffaelli, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

References

  1. Adamsons K, Pasley K. Coparenting following divorce and relationship dissolution. In: Fine MA, Harvey JH, editors. Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2006. pp. 241–261. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adkins KS, Kamp Dush CM. The mental health of mothers in and after violent and controlling unions. Social Science Research. 2010;39(6):925–937. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrons CR. The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1981;5:415–428. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1981.tb01390.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baril ME, Crouter AC, McHale SM. Processes linking adolescent well-being, marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21(4):645–654. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boss P, Greenberg J, Pearce-McCall D. Measurement of boundary ambiguity in families. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowen E. An overview of partner violence risk assessment and the potential role of female victim risk appraisals. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2011;16(3):214–226. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buchanan CM, Maccoby EE, Dornbusch SM. Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development. 1991;62:1008–1029. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01586.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dutton MA, Goodman LA, Lennig D, Murphy J, Kaltman S. Ecological model of battered women’s experience over time. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2006. NCJ document number 213713. [Google Scholar]
  9. Emery RE, Dillon P. Conceptualizing the divorce process: Renegotiating boundaries of intimacy and power in the divorced family system. Family Relations. 1994;43:374–379. doi: 10.2307/585367. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fabricius WV, Luecken LJ. Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology. 2007;21(2):195–205. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ford-Gilboe M, Wuest J, Merritt-Gray M. Strengthening capacity to limit intrusion: Theorizing family health promotion in the aftermath of woman abuse. Qualitative Health Research. 2005;15(4):477–501. doi: 10.1177/1049732305274590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Frye V, Manganello J, Campbell JC, Walton-Moss B, Wilt S. The distribution of and factors associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among a population-based sample of urban women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006;21(10):1286–313. doi: 10.1177/0886260506291658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodman LA, Dutton MA, Weinfurt K, Cook S. The Intimate Partner Violence Strategies Index: Development and application. Violence Against Women. 2003;9:163–186. doi: 10.1177/1077801202239004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hardesty JL, Crossman KA, Haselschwerdt ML, Raffaelli M, Ogolsky BG, Johnson MP. Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control and classifying violence types. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015;77(4):833–843. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hardesty JL, Ganong LH. How women make custody decisions and manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2006;23(4):543–563. doi: 10.1177/0265407506065983. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hardesty JL, Hans JD, Haselschwerdt ML, Khaw L, Crossman KA. The influence of mothers’ demeanor on custody evaluators’ assessment of their domestic violence allegations. Journal of Child Custody. 2015;12(1):47–70. doi: 10.1080/15379418.2014.943451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hardesty JL, Khaw L, Chung GH, Martin JM. Coparenting relationships after divorce: Variations by type of marital violence and fathers’ role differentiation. Family Relations. 2008;57:479–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00516.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hardesty JL, Raffaelli M, Khaw L, Mitchell E, Haselschwerdt ML, Crossman KA. An integrative theoretical model of intimate partner violence, coparenting after separation, and maternal and child well-being. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2012;4(4):318–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00139.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jaffe PG, Crooks CV, Poisson SE. Common misconceptions in addressing domestic violence in child custody disputes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 2003;54(4):57–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.2003.tb00086.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jaffe PG, Johnston JR, Crooks CV, Bala N. Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review. 2008;46(3):500–522. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00216.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jamison TB, Coleman M, Ganong LH, Feistman RE. Transitioning to postdivorce family life: A grounded theory investigation of resilience in coparenting. Family Relations. 2014;63(3):411–423. doi: 10.1111/fare.12074. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson MP. A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson MP, Leone JM. The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Family Issues. 2005;26(3):322–349. doi: 10.1177/0192513X04270345. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Khaw L, Hardesty JL. Perceptions of boundary ambiguity in the process of leaving an abusive partner. Family Process. 2015;54(2):327–343. doi: 10.1111/famp.12104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Leone JM. Suicidal behavior among low-income, African American female victims of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2011;26:2568–2591. doi: 10.1177/0886260510388280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Maccoby EE, Depner CE, Mnookin RH. Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52(1):141–155. doi: 10.2307/352846. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Maccoby EE, Mnookin RH. Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  28. Macie KM, Stolberg AL. Assessing parenting after divorce: The Co-Parenting Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 2003;39(1–2):89–107. doi: 10.1300/J087v39n01_06. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Madden-Derdich DA, Arditti JA. The ties that bind: Attachment between former spouses. Family Relations. 1999;48(3):243–249. doi: 10.2307/585633. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Madden-Derdich DA, Leonard SA. Parental role identity and fathers’ involvement in coparental interaction after divorce: Fathers’ perspectives. Family Relations. 2000;49(3):311–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00311.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Madden-Derdich DA, Leonard SA, Christopher FS. Boundary ambiguity and coparental conflict after divorce: An empirical test of a family systems model of the divorce process. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999;61(3):588–598. doi: 10.2307/353562. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Margolin G, Gordis EB, John RS. Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:3–21. doi: 10.103/0893-3200.15.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Markham MS, Coleman M. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Divorced mothers’ experiences with coparenting. Family Relations. 2012;61(4):586–600. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00718.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Markham MS, Ganong LH, Coleman M. Coparental identity and mothers’ cooperation in coparental relationships. Family Relations. 2007;56(4):369–377. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00466.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Masheter C. Healthy and unhealthy friendship and hostility between ex-spouses. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1997;59:463–475. doi: 10.2307/353483. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Morrill AC, Dai J, Dunn S, Sung I, Smith K. Child custody and visitation decisions when the father has perpetrated violence against the mother. Violence Against Women. 2005;11(8):1076–1107. doi: 10.1177/1077801205278046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nielsen SK, Hardesty JL, Raffaelli M. Exploring variations within situational couple violence and comparisons to coercive controlling violence and no violence/no control. Violence Against Women. 2015 doi: 10.1177/1077801215599842. Advance online publication. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ornstein P, Rickne J. When does intimate partner violence continue after separation? Violence Against Women. 2013;19(5):617–633. doi: 10.1177/1077801213490560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pruett MK, DiFonzo JH. Closing the gap: Research, policy, practice, and shared parenting. Family Court Review. 2014;52(2):152–174. doi: 10.1111/fcre.12078. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sheridan DJ. Treating survivors of intimate partner abuse. In: Olshaker JS, Jackson MC, Smock WS, editors. Forensic emergency medicine. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkens; 2001. pp. 203–228. [Google Scholar]
  41. Soper DS. Significance of the Difference between Two Correlations Calculator [Software] 2015 Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.
  42. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues. 1996;17(3):283–316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Teubert D, Pinquart M. The association between coparenting and child adjustment: A meta-analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2010;10(4):1529–1592. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2010.492040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tolman RM. Psychological abuse of women. In: Ammerman RT, Hersen M, editors. Assessment of family violence: A clinical and legal sourcebook. New York, NY: Wiley; 1992. pp. 291–310. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ver Steegh N. Differentiating types of domestic violence: Implications for child custody. Louisiana Law Review. 2004;65(4):1379–1431. [Google Scholar]
  46. Walker R, Logan TK, Jordan CE, Campbell JC. An integrative review of separation in the context of victimization consequences and implications for women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2004;5(2):143–193. doi: 10.1177/1524838003262333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Whiteside MF, Becker BJ. Parental factors and the young child’s postdivorce adjustment: A meta-analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000;14(1):5–26. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES