Litigation Subsequent to a Mandated Psycho-Educational Seminar for Divorcing Parents

This study was designed to assess the difference in litigation between two courts: one mandating For Kids' Sake, a psycho-educational seminar for divorcing parents, and the other not so mandating. The level of difficulty of children's adjustment to divorce has been positively correlated with parental hostility. More hostile parents would have more contested cases, interim motions, and relitigations. This research compared final dispositions, interim motions, and relitigation between parents in two courts in Collin County, Texas. The treatment group was from the 219th District Court which mandated all divorcing parents with minor children to attend the For Kids' Sake Seminar and the control group was from the 199th District Court which did not so mandate. Archival data was collected from a computer generated list for the Total group data to assess final dispositions and directly from District Clerk files for the In-Depth group data to assess interim motions and relitigation. The Total group was comprised of 679 research subjects with 330 cases in the treatment group and 349 cases in the control group. The In-Depth group consisted of 182 cases from both courts with 84 cases in the treatment group and 98 cases in the control group. Chi square analysis of the total group revealed significantly more parents in the treatment group who non suited the divorce suit and remained married (p. < .05), a significantly lower number of cases in the treatment group with interim motions (p. < .10), and a significantly lower amount of relitigation in the treatment group (p. < .05). The results showed that the court that mandated For Kids' Sake evidenced a reduction in subsequent litigation which not only benefits the legal system but also hopefully reflects lower parental hostility and higher parental cooperation, thereby benefiting the children of divorce