Cited by 50Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceFamily and Matrimonial LawFamily Dynamics and Relationships

Abused Mothers’ Safety Concerns and Court Mediators’ Custody Recommendations

Open access
Rivera, Echo A., Zeoli, April M., Sullivan, Cris M.·2012·Journal of Family Violence

Abstract

This study adds to research on family court's response to custody in the context of intimate partner abuse (IPA). Mediation is often used to assist family court with custody negotiation; however, debate exists in the field regarding its use when IPA exists. The following study examines experiences with court mediation among a sample of victimized mothers who divorced abusive husbands. Mixed-method data were collected from 19 women. Findings demonstrate that abuse is rarely considered in custody recommendations, as most court mediators prefer joint custody. Implications for the ongoing debate, as well as future directions for research, are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10896-012-9426-4

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Threatening behaviour and an individual's perceived sense of threat based on the pattern of past violence may be largely invisible and not understood by professionals involved in family court litigation.

    “Threatening behaviour––and an individual's perceived sense of threat based on the pattern of past violence they have experienced––may be largely invisible and not understood by professionals involved in family court litigation (Haselschwerdt et al., 2011; Katz et al., 2020; Rivera et al., 2012; Saunders et al., 2013).”

    From Post‐separation abuse: A concept analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Rivera et al., 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Harrison C 2008 Implacably hostile or appropriately protective?: Women managing child contact in the context of domestic violence Violence Against Women 14 381 405 18359876

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rivera, E. A., Zeoli, A. M., & Sullivan, C. M.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rivera, Echo A.
Venue
Journal of Family Violence
Published
2012-03-20
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
321-332
ISSN
  • 0885-7482 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2851
OpenAlex
W1982194932
Cited by
50
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Family Violence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R24MH075941)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12HD065879)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Law › Family and Matrimonial Law
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
intimate partner violence, child custody, judicial mediation, family court, joint custody, divorce, safety concerns

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review