Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

Child protection workers' experiences of working with high-conflictseparating families

Michael Saini a,⁎, Tara Black b, Kristen Lwin b, Alena Marshall a, Barbara Fallon a, Deborah Goodman b

a Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Canadab Child Welfare Institute, Children's Aid Society of Toronto, Canada

⁎ Corresponding author at: Factor-Inwentash FacultyToronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canad5027; fax: +1 416 946 8846.

E-mail address: michael.saini@utoronto.ca (M. Saini

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Alldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.005

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 November 2011Received in revised form 13 March 2012Accepted 14 March 2012Available online 23 March 2012

Keywords:High-conflictChild protectionChild custodyDivorceMaltreatment

Ongoing acrimonious conflict between separating parents can challenge child protection workers chargedwith the responsibility of investigating repeated allegations, especially when parents vigorously deflectblame to the other parent. There remains little evidence, however to guide practice when working withhigh-conflict families. The aim of this grounded theory approach was to explore child protection workers'perspectives of working with high-conflict families. Four focus groups with 28 child protection workerswere conducted in a large metropolitan agency. Findings revealed an overall lack of consensus regardingthe definition of high-conflict families. Participants expressed being challenged by the lack of training and ex-perience to work with disputing parents involved in high-conflict. Participants also expressed that thesecases require a substantial amount of resources, time, energy and emotional fortitude to deal with competingallegations of child maltreatment, the manipulation of acrimonious parents and the pressures of the familylaw system to take positions regarding custody and access issues. The study offers greater awareness of thechallenges and opportunities of helping children who are caught between their parents' child custody dis-putes within the context of child protection services.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Parents in high-conflict after separation and divorce are distin-guished from low-conflict parents by increased levels of preoccupa-tion and hostility between the parents, repeated malicious allegationsto authorities about the other parent, high rates of litigation, lowerrates of child support compliance, and an overall decreased capacityto parent (Birnbaum & Bala, 2010; Saini, Redmond, Polak & Yadeta,2011). Most separating couples are able to resolve their differences,but approximately 10 to 20% of parents remain in “high-conflict” inter-actions despite the passage of time (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002;Kelly, 2006). Despite the strong association between high-conflict andchildren's maladjustment post separation (Amato & Keith, 1991:Burke, McIntosh, & Gridley, 2007; Emery, 1994; Kelly, 2006), there re-mains little research on how high-conflict cases impact child protectionservices.

Among high-conflict cases characterized by “custody disputes”, childprotection investigators struggle to determine the credibility of themounting allegations and counter-claims of each parent (Brown, 2003;

of Social Work, University ofa M5S 1A1. Tel.: +1 416 946

).

rights reserved.

Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, & Bala, 2008; Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters,2005). Consequently, there remain few guidelines or strategies to assistchild protection workers in assessing and intervening with these com-plex cases (Brown, 2003). The purpose of this qualitative study is to ex-plore the experiences of child protection workers involved with high-conflict families. This is the first known study to include the voices ofchild protection workers to better understand how these cases are pro-cessed within child protection services.

Currently, the research to guide child protection service investigatorsto make decisions regarding child maltreatment within the context ofhigh-conflict divorce is sparse. Anecdotal reports suggest that high-conflict families are especially taxing on child protection workers whomust allocate a significant portion of each day mediating between twoparents (Brown, 2003). Allegations of child maltreatment can be difficultto substantiate given the high degree of animosity, hostility and preoccu-pation between parents (Johnston et al., 2005). Workers may also mini-mize allegations made by a parent and believe all allegations are falseor inflated exaggerations fuelled by angry parents stuck in a ‘custody dis-pute’ (Brown, 2003; Jaffe et al., 2008; Johnston et al., 2005). Several stud-ies have indicated (although limited by small unrepresentative samplesizes) that half of all allegations of child maltreatment in the context ofcustody disputes are considered unsubstantiated by child protection ser-vices (Bala & Schuman, 1999; Bala, Mitnick, Trocomé, & Houston, 2007;Brown, 2003; Johnston et al., 2005; Shaffer & Bala, 2003; Thoennes &Tjaden, 1990). However, only a small number of unfounded child

1310 M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

maltreatment allegations appear to be due to deliberate ormalicious fab-rications (Saini, 2011), which suggests that a substantial number of validcases may be prematurely discarded (Bala et al., 2007; Brown, 2003).

Cases often become increasingly complex as parents vigorously de-flect blame on to the other parent (Brown, 2003; Jaffe et al., 2008;Johnston et al., 2005). The absence of literature guiding the decisionmaking processes for child protection workers involved in high-conflict separation and divorce investigations is concerning. Families in-volved in post-separation disputes place a significant amount of stresson workers (Bacon & McKenzie, 2004; Jaffe et al., 2008; Kelly, 2006,2007; Saini & Birnbaum, 2007). Saini (2011), found that regardless ofthe status of substantiation, child protection workers are more inclinedto refer high-conflict families to non-compulsory community programs,whichmay prematurely terminate protection services, leaving childrencaught in parental conflict. Therefore, understanding the patterns of in-teraction between high-conflict families and child protectionworkers isessential.

In order for child protection service investigators to appropriatelyintervene in situations where there is risk to a child being emotionallyharmed as a consequence of parental disputes, child protection inves-tigators must become experts in high-conflict cases (Litback, 2007).The potential harm to children caught in high levels of interparentalconflict is an urgent priority for child protection services. In an effortto improve the ability of child protection workers to accurately iden-tify and respond to children at risk of emotional harm, the study ex-plores workers' perceptions of high-conflict cases and the impact ofthe children involved in them. The study seeks to illuminate the expe-riences of child protection workers when working with high-conflictfamilies as well as draw attention to service gaps for both workers in-volved in high-conflict cases as well as the parents and childrenentrenched within them.

2. Methods

Child protection workers at a large metropolitan child protectionagencywere recruited by email from the ChildWelfare Institute to par-ticipate in a focus group to share their experiences of working withhigh-conflict separated/divorcing families within the context of childmaltreatment investigations. The agency is one of the largest child wel-fare agencies in North America with a number of specialized services torespond to and support children and families in the community, includ-ing, intake services, and domestic violence intake teams.

Four different focus groups were scheduled so that workers couldchoose a date and time most convenient to them. Each focus groupwas conducted by a graduate student who had limited prior knowledgeof high-conflict families. Although guidedby a semi-structured interviewtemplate, effort was made to provide the workers with sufficient oppor-tunity to discuss their unique views of working with high-conflict fami-lies. After each focus group, the graduate student debriefed with theprincipal investigator about the process of facilitating the groups andthe kinds of issues raised by the participants. Each focus group consistedof 6 to 8workerswhomet during their lunch hour for approximately 1 h.Workers were offered pizza as an incentive to participate in the focusgroups, which took place at the child protection agency. Upon each par-ticipant's signage of a consent form, all four focus groups were recordedusing a small MP3 recording device and later transcribed to assist withthematic analysis. The studywas approved by the Research Ethics Boardsof the University of Toronto and the Child Welfare Institute.

Purposive sampling was appropriate for this study given that keystakeholders were included based on the predetermined criteria ofimportance (Patton, 1990). The inclusion criteria were as follows:(1) child protection workers employed at a large urban child protec-tion agency and (2) those that had experience working with high-conflict parents after separation and divorce. The focus groups pro-vided a repository of information relevant to the investigation andcircumstances of working with high-conflict parents after separation

and divorce. Furthermore, the groups provided insight into contem-porary practices and the decision making processes of child protec-tion workers when working with high-conflict parents. The focusgroup questions included: How are high-conflict parents perceived,identified and described? What characteristics of parents (e.g., men-tal health, substance use) are captured in decision making? What dochild protection workers perceive to be the main risks to children ex-posed to high-conflict? What impact does the level of parental coop-eration with workers have on case decisions and child protectionplans? What strategies seem to work and not work with high-conflict families? The questions initiated an exploratory discussionthat revealed common themes among child protection workers.

3. Data analysis

The four focus groups with child protection workers were tran-scribed into text and then imported into NVivo for qualitative analysisusing grounded theory to guide the analysis process. Theory develop-ment was grounded in data (Charmaz, 2000) and all data were siftedto uncover general themes until saturation was reached (Strauss &Corbin, 1990). Two graduate students completed the initial open codingby reading each transcription and coding common themes, includingquotations to support each theme. The team then met to discuss theopen codes developed by each student, discussed differences and thenexplored relationships and interrelationships between identified opencategories. The next stage of analysis consisted of selected coding toconnect the interrelationship of codes and themes. This process contin-ued until saturation occurred and no new codes and/or relationshipsemerged from the data. This continuous transactional interplay be-tween data collection and analysis sets grounded theory apart fromother qualitative approaches (Glaser, 1992).

4. Results

4.1. Demographic of sample

A total of twenty-eight child protection workers participated infour focus groups. Study participants occupied various positions with-in the child protection agency, including: intake worker, family ser-vice worker and children's service worker. Focus group participantswere comprised of six males and 22 females. Experience of workingwith high-conflict families ranged from 1 year to over 20 years of di-rect practice with high-conflict families.

4.2. Major themes

Focus group discussions provided information about the partici-pants' experiences with working with high-conflict families in achild protection context. Participants welcomed the opportunity todiscuss definitional issues regarding high-conflict families, the roleof child protection as well as their responses when working withcaregivers in conflict. Participants also expressed their difficulties inworking with high-conflict families within a child protection context.

4.3. Understanding high-conflict families

In order to effectively work with families and external systems in-volved in high-conflict separation, participants expressed the urgentneed to develop a common approach for assessing high-conflict fam-ilies and responding to their unique needs in a more consistent man-ner. Despite the importance of developing a common approach forworking with high-conflict families, participants expressed thatthere remains divergent views about defining high-conflict, whichhas challenged efforts to develop a consistent approach for workingwith high-conflict families. The conflicting factors that are relevantto understanding high-conflict families include a mixture of workers'

1311M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

perceptions regarding the manner in which high-conflict intersectswith other child protection issues such as repeated allegations of mal-treatment, the degree of emotional harm experienced by the childreninvolved, the presence of domestic violence, and children's overallwell-being.

4.3.1. Divergent definitions of high-conflictParticipants provided a range of factors to consider when defining

high-conflict but generally struggled to isolate specific factors thatshould be includedwithin an overall definition of high-conflict families.As one participant states: “… it's hard to pinpoint an exact definition…

and how it intersects with child protection issues.” As an unintendedconsequence of these discussions, participants spoke about their ownlearning about high-conflict families based on their involvement inthe focus groups, and the opportunity these discussions provided to re-flect on one's practice frameworks: “It's an interesting question becausewe get custody and access cases, we'll call them that for lack of a betterterm, andwe get them all the time butwe don't really knowwhen it be-comes high-conflict.” Nonetheless, there was no agreement on the corefactors that should be consideredwhen assessing for high-conflictwith-in the context of child protection services. One of the most concise def-initions presented was the following:

“My idea of a family that's called high-conflict is when there's chil-dren involved and when we're involved because there is a lot oftension between the parents and it's difficult to knowwho is moreresponsible for it, or if it's less clear whether there is one parentthat is more abusive for example, than the other parent….”

4.3.2. Factors to considerAlthough there was little consensus on a specific definition, partic-

ipants communicated a variety of characteristics of high-conflict fam-ilies and factors they consider. Key features that emerged during thefocus groups were: manipulation, lack of communication, and a per-petual state of crisis.

4.3.3. ManipulationAccording to the participants, a consistent characteristic of high-

conflict families is manipulation. Participants felt that caregivers inhigh-conflict situations often maneuver around the child protectionsystem in attempts to solicit support for their claims within thechild custody dispute. One participant indicated:

“But there are the families that can't afford to go through custodyorder court or whatever and they try to use us if they're not happywith the terms of access that are in place. They're the ones that arecalling us on Friday, before the other parent has a weekend longaccess visit, reporting concerns because they want us to suspendthe access because they don't want the kids to go.”

The act of manipulation was considered a strategy that caregiversuse with various professionals involved with their case, including law-yers, judges,mental healthworkers, and the children. As one participantstated, “high-conflict separation usually involves manipulation of thechildren, by each, either or both parents, to help facilitate the outcomethat they would like to see.” Participants stressed that a key feature ofhigh-conflict families is the use of manipulation. One participant feltthat a sign for recognizing high-conflict is “…when you see a parent re-ally working at trying to manipulate the child's opinion about anotherparent.” Another participant indicated, “I think they become very pos-sessive of their kids and start to manipulate the children into takingsides as well, they want their children to believe their side so that theywill stay with them.” The perception that high-conflict parents use ma-nipulation for tactical gains in custody disputeswas an overarching con-cern infused into the characterization of high-conflict families. Parentsin these cases were observed as actively seeking support from child

protection workers to support their positions based on the preoccupa-tion of the wrongdoings of the other parent.

4.3.4. Perpetual crisisA related theme to the notion of preoccupation was that high-

conflict families are often caught in a perceptual state of crisis. Oneparticipant noted: “I think that high-conflict families seem to be in aperpetual kind of state of crisis, and there is very little resolution,for long periods of time.” Participants distinguished the existence ofemotional variability within typical families involved in child protec-tion services with the continuous elevated state of emotional arousalfound in high-conflict families. As noted by one participant, the crisisexperienced by parents in high-conflict situations may be connectedto feelings of attachment, loss, or the inability to emotionally releasefrom the relationship with their ex-partner:

“… parents remain almost stuck in the past, so that the content oftheir present discussion is often rooted in their past experience.And so again … it is the past that's being carried on and on andon into the present. Parents are hurt and they haven't grievedthe loss of their relationship, and that's why it continues on.”

4.3.5. Lack of communication between parentsParticipants noted that high-conflict parents either do not com-

municate or they are unable to effectively communicate to informthe other parent regarding information relevant to the children. Thelack of communication between the parents and the basic mistrustfor the other were thought to contribute to both misunderstandingsand distorted allegations.

“Definitely in a lot of cases where we investigate, there are legiti-mate concerns but there is also a fair share of cases where it's justa simple case of miscommunication, where if one parent could ac-tually communicate and actually talk to the other parent, or ifthere was a communication log or something going back andforth, it would prevent child abuse investigations from occurring.”

Participants felt that the communication deficiencies of the par-ents often augmented an already problematic situation, resulting inincreased difficulties when trying to assess the credibility of allega-tions made within the context of child protection investigations. Asone participant noted:

“So instead of it being a situation where the parents actually com-municate back and forth, there is so much conflict that there endsup being no communication, so any comment that is said is oftentaken out of context because you're [the other parent is] not ableto see the other side of the situation.”

The lack of communication between the parents was thought tobe indicative of deeper problems of hurt and anger between the par-ents. As noted by one participant: “A lot of times it's not about thekids even, it's more about how hurt the parties are.” The lack of com-munication was also considered to be compounded by the lack oftrust between parents and their inability to observe the children inthe other home: “It's sometimes a situation where one parent doesn'tnecessarily see what is going on in the other parent's home. There isno communication between the two parents because there is somuch animosity.”

4.3.6. Workers' perceptions of parentingWhen participants discussed their perceptions of the caregivers

caught in high-conflict situations, they focused on the parents' lackof awareness of the impact of their behaviors on their children. Asone participant expressed, “I think they are very resentful, and thenthey say a lot of resentful things and they don't always understandhow they are hurting the children.” Participants expressed strong

1312 M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

concern for the well-being of children in high-conflict situations andthey often tried to communicate these concerns with the caregiversbut felt that the gravity of exposing the children to the conflict wasnot always appreciated by the caregivers. As one participant stated:“They get caught up in their own emotions, so their own emotionskinda take over how they are feeling and they forget that what issaid in anger can be overheard by the children.”

4.3.7. Domestic violenceTherewas a lot of discussion, without consensus, aboutwhether do-

mestic violence should be included in the definition of high-conflict.Those in favor of including domestic violence within the definition ofhigh-conflict pointed out that “high-conflict families to mean thatthere was police involvement and that charges were laid.” Anothernoted that: “A lot of things that have been called high-conflict are actu-ally domestic violence. So I think the term is overused.” Some partici-pants disagreed with the inclusion of domestic violence within thedefinition of high-conflict because of the specific power imbalance be-tween partners within domestic violence cases that may or not be pre-sent in high-conflict cases. Others argued that high-conflict families aresimply a continuation of domestic violence dynamics. One participantnoted:

“I'd put domestic violence in the category of high-conflict, I thinkthere are a lot of familieswhere it's actually an extension of domesticviolence but it's labeled high-conflict, I think that that's not accuratewhen it's a continuation of somebodywho is abusive to their partnerand they are continuing the abuse after separation.”

Participants in each focus group discussed domestic violencethoroughly:

“… so it's a term that implies that there is some sort of equal re-sponsibility by both parents in this conflict that they are both …

doing something that is extremely harmful to the child insteadof looking at the pattern of abuse that has occurred and recogniz-ing the return of sort of abuse or domestic violence.”

Participants discussed the blurring lines between a high-conflictcase and a case that involved domestic violence. Overall, participantsexpressed that child protection investigations should include a bal-anced approach of assessing for the presence of both high-conflictand domestic violence in custody cases so that no one factor getsoverlooked.

4.3.8. Children's well-beingParticipants shared a common concern regarding the well-being

of the children involved in high-conflict cases. For example, one par-ticipant emphasized that the role of child protection workers shouldbe to focus on the children's emotional harm resulting from being ex-posed to parental conflict, which means carefully considering the im-pact of adult conflict on the child's overall well-being (e.g., emotional,academic, social). According to the participants one of the primarygoals of child protection services when working with parents inhigh-conflict should be to help caregivers understand that their con-flict may have the potential for negative consequences and harm totheir child(ren). Child protection workers should try “to help peoplein a supportive way to try and bring people back to the issues thatyou think are most important which is the emotional wellbeing ofthe child, in a way that isn't going to get them defensive or shutthem down during that interaction.”

4.4. The role of child protection

Discussions about the role of child protection services with high-conflict families espoused varying responses from the participants,including workers' perception of the role of child protection services;

the difference between determining risk of maltreatment and takingpositions about custody; lack of role clarity as experienced by childprotection workers and working with other professionals.

4.4.1. The role of child protection servicesA theme across all focus groups was the lack of consensus regarding

the optimal response of child protection workers responding to high-conflict involved in custody disputes. Participants acknowledged thatthere is great variability among child protection worker responses tohigh-conflict families. One participant indicated: “But it's interesting be-cause I think that there's a huge range of response in terms of the re-sponse of the society, like the same set of facts hitting different workerson different teams gets a different response.” Inconsistencies are foundthroughout the investigation process, especially in terms of assessingthe impact of high-conflict on children: “…what I might consider an ex-tremely distressed child, someone might say ‘oh you know it's not thatbig a deal, he's not hitting this child.” This variability about the impactof high-conflict on children is further compounded by a lack of substan-tive policy about the short and long term effects of high-conflict in thefamily context. The following statements explain participants' uncertain-ty as to the best practice with high-conflict families:

“I think its [high conflict] much more ambiguous. It's much morean area that we haven't talked too much about; we haven't donemuch research, we don't know really what to do with ourselvesin these sort of muddy conflict kind of situations.”

“I think that we need some training, like clear cut, this is whatyour role is, this is what you should be doing, this is what youshouldn't be doing.”

4.4.2. Differences between determining risk of maltreatment and takingpositions about custody

Participants discussed the difficulty in balancing the need to deter-mine the risk of maltreatment while not taking a position regarding is-sues related to the children custody and access with the parents. In achild protection investigation, the worker's assessment typically mea-sures the amount of risk or actual maltreatment against a child. But atthe conclusion of these investigations, participants stated that theyoften feel pressured to take a position regarding the custody of or accessto the children based on the results of their investigations. These pres-sures can come from the parents, their lawyers, custody evaluatorsand others involved in helping the courts make a decision regardingthe child custody case. Participants indicated that they will not take aposition in regards to custody or access because it is not in their man-date. Instead, they often refer families back to the family lawcourt to set-tle disputes regarding parenting plans. The participants also expressedgreat difficulty in assessing the extent of emotional harm experiencedby children within these investigations. This uncertainty is expressedin one participant's views:

“It's sad though when you are sitting there watching this child suf-fering and you're like, you know if we have an incident that hap-pens next week then that might just be enough to take it tocourt. Like, it puts us in such a difficult position, because you wantto help more than you can.”

Given the lack of time and training to complete investigationswithinthe context of high-conflict separations, participants expressed that it isdifficult to determine the link between caregivers' conflict and the riskof emotional harm for the children involved. One participant indicated,“… the emotional piece, with high-conflict; our concern is the emotion-al effect. It is the most difficult to prove within our family courts, to getany court orders because of the stipulation that the child has to demon-strate very concrete findings.” Difficulties of assessing emotional harmwere also related to the challenges of dismantling the concrete evidencefrom the manipulation of the parents. One participant indicated: “it

1313M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

feels like we're being manipulated or engaged in a way that is to suitsomeone's purposes that wemay not be aware of.”Overall, participantsfeel apprehensive to substantiate the risk of emotional harmwithin thecontext of high-conflict, which is exemplified in the following:

“I think, the difficulty too is that the risk of emotional harm is notlooked at highly by the courts. In comparison to physical harm andrisk of physical harm, emotional harm is harder to prove… you needmore evidence and meanwhile with these cases, these kids are al-ready harmed emotionally from what's gone on and it feels like wehave to try to get evidence to prove that— there is never enough.”

4.4.3. Lack of role clarity as experienced by child protection workersParticipants provided mixed answers to whether they had clarity in

their roles whenworkingwith high-conflict families. Some participantsfelt that high-conflict situations were not child protection issues butrather should be dealt with by the family law system. Others had con-cerns that child protection involvement with high-conflict familiescould negatively contribute to the conflict therebymaking the problemsworse for the children. One participant indicated:

“I think when we make the situation worse, which is a lot of thetime … that our involvement just creates more turmoil betweenthe families. We are limited in terms of the amount of serviceswe can provide to a family and our involvement just really fuelsthe fire. Um, so I think that in those situations that um, when weare helping we're hindering; I don't think we should be involved.”

Conversely, concern for the child's emotional wellbeing and con-sideration of the risk of emotional harm as a basis for child protectioninvolvement was also expressed during the discussions. For example:

“But when there's custody issues involved in the separation, thechild protection piece … takes precedence and we can actuallydo our work and make recommendations but still not be involvedin the separation process, necessarily. So very often we work par-allel to the separation or divorce custody proceedings.”

4.4.4. Working with other professionalsParticipants felt frustrated about working with high-conflict fami-

lies, partly because of the lack of understanding by outside professionalsand systems of the child protectionmandate. They expressed that otherprofessionals seem to consider child protection workers as the casemanager when working in collaboration with other professionals,where these professionals view child protection services as a ‘catchall’ service that is adequately able to deal with high-conflict situationsbecause children are involved. One participant indicated: “I think thereality is we are kinda the one stop shop. Sowhen, somebody else in so-ciety doesn't know where to go, they come to us!” Furthermore, therewas an impression that many families going through custody or accessdisputes are automatically referred to child protection regardless ofwhether or not the children are at risk. Participants felt that externalsystems are unable to adequately deal with high-conflict families, andas a result, inappropriately refer cases to child protection services forsupport and case management. One participant noted:

“I would say it is not uncommon in a lot of cases that [child protec-tion services] is seen as the catch all to coordinate everything andso it wouldn't be uncommon. What might be unique is there ahigh level of need for coordination in these high-conflict cases.”

However, child protection professionals sometimes feel ill equippedto effectively assess referred cases. Participants felt that external profes-sionals often unload their difficult cases onto the child protectionworkers:

“We're getting a whole bunch of referrals from other people whodon't knowwhat to do, andwe're getting themandwedon't feel like

we can appropriately service these clients sowe end up referring outto other agencies, counseling, whatever, and we're saying that theydon't know how to properly deal with these families either.”

4.5. Impact of working with high-conflict families

In addition to ongoing stresses and difficulties of workingwith high-conflict families, participants reported that working with high-conflictfamilies have an enormous impact on their emotional well-being. Theconsequences of working with high-conflict families were presentedas being more severe than with other types of cases and focus on feel-ings of being caught, trepidation, psychological stress of working withhigh-conflict families, and taking time from other casework.

4.5.1. Feelings of being caughtWorkers discussed feeling caught in the middle of high-conflict

parents and being “trapped” in these cases. Many of the participantsfelt that child protection services should not become involved inhigh-conflict cases but they are forced to investigate because of pres-sures from the judicial system or other external agencies. As noted byone participant:

“With the court systems now, it is hit or miss; sometimes we arebeing dragged into family situations because they want us todeem access, so often we are in a situation where we typicallywould not necessarily be supervising the access. The courts arenowmaking that as part of their order, so we have to comply withthat. So sometimes we will get cases where it is custody and ac-cess, and we are kind of assisting, with the access piece.”

Participants described a feeling of working beyond their child pro-tection mandate with high-conflict families because of the families'multiple and complex needs in order to reorganize their lives follow-ing the breakdown of the family unit. As one participant explained,once families are involved with child protection, they often turn tothem to sort out scheduling issues, to relay messages and to help inmaking changes to the schedule:

“A lot of families need someone to sort out the access and the dropoff points and who is having who for mother's day or whatever,school holidays, who gets to go to the school plays and whodoesn't, particularly if there's bail conditions if there's been do-mestic violence. It really adds another element to our work in hav-ing to sort out all of that when that's been put on our shoulders aswell, to my knowledge there is no outside agency that would dothat, take on like the case planning, so while my focus is on thechild, I end up getting caught up in calling mum and dad.”

Feelings of being “caught” arise from having to work within the ju-dicial system where decisions are made by the courts. Frequently, it isthe professionals within this system who deem whether child protec-tion involvement is necessary. One participant explained: “… untilthe judge makes a decision that we no longer have to supervise thisstuff, we are stuck with it.”

4.5.2. TrepidationParticipants discussed their feelings of trepidation when working

with high-conflict families. For example, a lack of experience in com-municating with lawyers can result in anxiety about high-conflictcases. One participant indicated;

“People get scared of the legal stuff, a lawyer calls you and you'reeither telling them stuff that you shouldn't or you are scared to tellthem stuff … or people are like ‘ahh!’ lawyers are on the phone,they just seem to lose all sort of common sense … I think workersare just so scared, and they clam up and a lot of people seem tolose their judgement or objectivity.”

1314 M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

Participants expressed apprehension about saying “the wrongthing” to lawyers. Additionally, child protection workers felt inexperi-enced about how to navigate the judicial system and felt unsure ofhow to deal with aggressive lawyers working on behalf of their clientswho are engaged in a custody dispute. Many child protection workersfelt as though they were walking on eggshells with high-conflict fam-ilies for fear that their involvement might trigger further calamities.

The psychological stress of workingwith high-conflict families aroseas a key theme among child protection workers. The experience ofbeing immersed in a constant volatile case has a noticeable psycholog-ical impact on workers. Dealing with constant crisis and trying to iden-tify the manipulation tactics of parents created emotional drain for theparticipants in the study. As one participant described: “They are frus-trating and they are time consuming and a lot of them, you don'tknow what reality here is.” Furthermore, the innumerable hours spenton these cases take a psychological toll on workers. Participants dis-cussed the time and emotional aspect of high-conflict cases as beingmore severe than the majority of their other case work. “When youare dealing with fourteen other cases, and then all of a sudden you getone of these high-conflict families thrown into the mix … it takes upso much time and you still have all the other stuff coming in. It's crazymaking and stressful….” Participants noted that high-conflict casesare demanding, stressful and time consuming. Working with onehigh-conflict case was considered equivalent to working with severalnon-custody cases due to the time and attention and resources requiredby these high-conflict cases.

4.5.3. Taking time from other child maltreatment casesParticipants discussed the enormous amount of time that it takes to

work with high-conflict families. The numerous calls from caregiversand professionals, the repeated and retaliatory allegations and theresulting investigations take up a lot of time and energy. Participantsdescribed being left with few resources to deal with their other cases.For example: “High-conflict … they just constantly, they just needyou, they are taking up all your time and energy, like you could go afull week and you are dealing with that same family that you don'teven have time to get to your other cases.” Participants also expressedhow high-conflict cases are often in crisis, which corresponds to an in-creased amount of time spentworkingwith the families and collaterals:“… you can't underestimate the amount of time you have to put intothese cases….” Some participants expressed developing feelings of re-sentment because of the total time taken with high-conflict familiesand lack of ability to work with other types of cases. One participantrecalled: “These cases take up like the whole week! Like I had threedays straight of one case!”

4.6. Findings solutions

Although high-conflict families were described as being difficult towork with, many of the participants desired more skills to work withhigh-conflict families in a more effective manner. Other participantsexpressed being partial to high-conflict cases and regularly requestthem during case assignment. The primary themes for “finding solu-tions” are: training; specialized teams, and collaboration with exter-nal professionals.

4.6.1. TrainingParticipants expressed the immediate need for more training in

the area of high-conflict. The majority participants had not attendeda single training session specific to high-conflict. One participantnoted the need for training and its applicability to achieving a com-prehensive investigation: “I just think that although we're getting alot of this information [from investigations] sometimes nobodyknows which way to go with it after.” Participants wanted trainingto expand their knowledge and skills in assessing high-conflict fami-lies. As described by one participant:

“To have a better idea of what's going on with these kids. I think itis way too difficult for us and our jobs and the capacity we have,you know the multitude of tasks. We have to try to come up withsome sort of proper assessment of these children and of thesefamilies in this setting.”

The need for more training regarding the judicial system and waysto effectively work with lawyers was seen as especially relevant forthe participants with less child protection experience. However,even participants with years of expertise noted the difficulty in work-ing with high-conflict cases and considered specialized training inareas of alienation, domestic violence and emotional harm of childrenwould be beneficial for their work: “We have no training on parentalalienation and I think for people who are well trained, it is still diffi-cult, like it's a tricky tricky subject so it's impossible I think for us todo any sort of assessment and yet we are being asked to a lot of thetimes.” Participants felt that training for employees, as well as exter-nal professionals, would be helpful to ensure a better collaborationand coordinated response to high-conflict cases.

4.6.2. Specialized teamsWhen considering how to best work with high-conflict families,

participants noted the benefits of creating specialized teams. Partici-pants felt that people who have the experience and desire to workwith high-conflict families should be permitted to do so. As notedby one participant: “There are certain areas where you really needsomeonewho has a specialty so that they can feel comfortable and ca-pable. They know the system, they are comfortable with dealing withtwo lawyers, and are actually able to deal with the issues at hand.”Moreover, specialized workers would able to attend internal and ex-ternal training in the area, thereby increasing the expertise of individ-ual workers as well as the agency as a whole. Participants alsosuggested that specialized workers or teams could provide supportfor workers who lack expertise in high-conflict. Overall, participantssuggested that more training within a specialized team approachcould help to gain additional knowledge and ideas for working withthis population.

4.6.3. Collaboration with external professionalsA final theme that arose from the discussion on the need for effec-

tive practice was the importance of increasing coordination and col-laboration with external agencies and professionals. One participantexpressed that: “… it'd be nice to see more coordination betweenchild protection and the family court around helping the parents tosee that real impact on the children… In terms of collaboration, prob-ably would require child protection and the family courts to workmore closely with each other in these cases.” Participants also feltthat there is an unsystematic response to high-conflict cases betweendifferent agencies (including those within child protection). Collabo-ration with internal and external resources would support a coordi-nated response and provide an effective method of working withcaregivers, both on an individual as well as familial basis. A partici-pant described their experience working with outside professionals:“I lost focus of what the whole file was about because, we were justspinning … but once, for one of my cases, we had a session with (ex-ternal professional) … and we sat there for three hours talking aboutthe case and she was able to help us refocus.” Workers felt that in-creased collaboration and a coordinated response would increase aneffective use of time and resources and decrease any negative impactson the children. The focus of collaboration was considered to help in-crease support for parents while ensuring the safety of the children:“When I hear collaboration I'm thinking more in terms of connectingwith the collaterals to take a more creative approach when we speakwith people like teachers, day care workers, family doctors….”

Rather than limit the child protection response to just the parents andthe children, participants expressed the need to develop collaborative

1315M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

approaches for working with high-conflict families that connect familieswith professionals with expertise of working with high-conflict families,including therapists, mediators, parent coordinators and parent coaches.

5. Discussion

Child protection services struggle to effectively intervene in caseswhere children are exposed to parental conflict (Jaffe et al., 2008;Johnston et al., 2005). High-conflict cases brought to the attention ofchild protection services are characterized by repeated allegations ofchild maltreatment, which are often unsubstantiated (Brown, 2003;Jaffe et al., 2008; Johnston et al., 2005). Furthermore, high-conflict cus-tody disputes require a disproportionate amount of resources from thecommunity services, including child protection, police, mental healthservices and the courts (Jaffe et al., 2008; Kelly, 2006, 2007; Saini &Birnbaum, 2007).

The findings from the focus groups reveal participants' ambiguityand trepidation when working with high-conflict families within achild protection context. The results suggest that such ambiguity be-gins with no clear consensus on the definition of a high-conflict fam-ily. There are no standard methods for investigating factors such asconflict, domestic violence, alienation, maladaptive parenting andemotional harm within the context of high-conflict investigations.As a result, participants were uncertain of how to appropriately re-spond to high-conflict families from a child protection mandate. Thelack of clear mandate for working with high-conflict parents and chil-dren makes it difficult to work with conflicting parents who havecompeting demands and interests.

Participants also described the enormous impact of working withhigh-conflict families. The constant crisis within the family extendsto child protection workers who must manage multiple referrals, nu-merous calls, visits, and the involvement of external professionals, in-cluding the judicial system. Many participants felt helpless workingwith high-conflict families. They felt compelled to maintain involve-ment with certain families due to the families' continued engagementwith the judicial system. Heightened anxiety was also a factor forsome workers when dealing with lawyers, primarily because of alack of knowledge about the judicial system and uncertainty aboutwhat they can and cannot disclose. Working with high-conflict fami-lies consumed an exorbitant amount of the participants' time. Highconflict cases often results in multiple referrals, calls and visits dueto the highly volatile nature of the high-conflict families.

Participants expressed a need for training in the area of high-conflict families. Child protection workers would like to gain a betterunderstanding of these types of families, as well as the most appropri-ate way to respond to individuals in high-conflict. There is a need forpractical guidance to work with parents to ensure safety for the chil-dren. Participants expressed a need for collaboration between sys-tems such as child protection, judicial, and educational. Part of thedifficulty in working with high-conflict families is the lack of consis-tent interests between parties within the larger community system.An integrated response would ensure better service and support forcaregivers, as well as more safety for children.

5.1. Limitations

The findings provide important qualitative data regarding thechallenges and opportunities for working with high-conflict familiesbased on the experiences of child protection workers with a childwelfare agency. The qualitative design provides rich details aboutworkers' experiences but there are limitations that should be notedin interpreting these results. Since this study obtained the partici-pants' perspectives of working with high-conflict families, the resultscannot be generalized beyond the experiences of the workers in thissample, as it is unknown to what extent their perspectives apply tochild protection workers in different agencies or geographic locations.

Participants were self-selected to be included in the sample so that itis unknown whether the experiences shared by the participantswould differ from the experiences of other child protection workersnot involved in the sample. Existing research on high-conflict familiesinvolved in child protection however provides support for the presentfindings (Brown, 2003; Jaffe et al., 2008; Johnston et al., 2005). Anoth-er limitation is that this research did not elicit the workers' own expe-riences and involvement in high-conflict families. As is advisable incollecting sensitive data in the context of a group, by design theworkers typically spoke in general terms about experiences of work-ing with high-conflict families. Research is required in order to obtainthe perspectives of workers directly involved in high-conflict investi-gations at the time of conducting the research so that their experi-ences can be more directly linked to specific case analysis.

6. Implications for practice, policy and research

Each focus group presented the need for investigative and ongoingdirect practice skills to work with high-conflict families. Participantsprovided a number of key factors that should be considered when de-veloping this knowledge base and to enhance the skills of those work-ing with high-conflict families.

6.1. Training

There is a significant need for training in the area of high-conflictfamilies. Training needs to incorporate a definition for high-conflictas well as outline a child protection worker's role and relationshipwith members of the judicial system. Front line workers need a con-crete understanding of high-conflict families, the characteristics andfactors of high-conflict families, and ways to better address the poten-tial risk of harm to the children caught within the conflicts. Child pro-tection workers would also benefit from a better understanding of thelegal process relevant to custody and access, divorce and high-conflictfamilies. Awareness of the unique factors that contribute to high-conflict families can facilitate informed decisions about the role ofchild protection services in responding to the needs of children inhigh-conflict families and can increase workers' confidence whendealing with professionals within the family law system.

6.2. Direct case work

The development of specialized high-conflict teams could provideneeded expertise within child protection agencies to help improvethe services to the families. Front line workers who have a particularinterest in and expertise about high-conflict families would be bestequipped to support children and parents involved in high-conflictsituations. Specialized workers could be assigned the majority ofhigh-conflict cases and in turn could share their expertise with otherswithin the child protection agencies.

The use of case conferencing for high-conflict families could helpfamilies by bringing all interested stakeholders together to discussthe best ways to keep children safe from the risk of emotionalharm. The inclusion of specialized workers or professionals outsideof the agency could enhance existing methods of supporting the fam-ily and ensuring the child's safety.

6.3. Collaboration

Collaboration is a key component for effectively supporting fami-lies. There is a specific need for a coordinated response to high-conflict families between systems. For example, child protection andthe family law system both require a coordinated effort to respondto complex allegations of maltreatment as the results of such investi-gations have implications for both child protection services and deci-sions made within the family law system in terms of custody and

1316 M. Saini et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1309–1316

access. Sharing resources and expertise could help to strengthen pro-fessional relationships and avoid the risk of pitting professionalsagainst each other, which can result in inconsistent responses.

References

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

Bacon, B. L., & McKenzie, B. (2004). Parent education after separation/divorce: Impactof the level of parental conflict on outcomes. Family Court Review, 42(1), 85–98.

Bala, N., Mitnick, M., Trocomé, N., & Houston, C. (2007). Sexual abuse allegations andparental separation: Smokescreen or fire? Journal of Family Studies, 13(1).

Bala, N., & Schuman, J. (1999). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separat-ed. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191–243.

Birnbaum, R., & Bala, N. (2010). Judicial interviews with children in custody and accesscases: Comparing experiences in Ontario and Ohio. International Journal of Law,Policy and the Family, 24(3), 300–337.

Brown, T. (2003). Fathers and child abuse allegations in the context of parental separa-tion and divorce. Family Court Review, 41(3), 367–381.

Burke, S., McIntosh, J., & Gridley, H. (2007). Parenting after separation. A position state-ment prepared for the Australian Psychological Association. The Australian Psycho-logical Society Ltd.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). (2ndedition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

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

Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley,CA: Sociology Press.

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

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J. R., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involvingallegations of domestic violence: Toward a differentiated approach to parentingplans. Family Court Review, 46(3), 500–522.

Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substan-tiations of abuse in custody disputing families. Family Court Review, 43, 283–294.

Kelly, J. B. (2006). Children's living arrangements following separation and divorce: In-sights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process, 46(1), 35–52.

Kelly, J. (2007). Domestic violence: Research on differentiation of types of intimatepartner violence. Presentation at the 44nd Annual Conference of the Association ofFamily and Conciliation Courts. Washington DC. May 30 to June 2, 2007.

Litback, A. (2007). Best practices with families experiencing high-conflict separationand divorce. Unpublished manuscript for the Jewish Family and Child in conjunc-tion with the high-conflict form.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublication.

Saini, M. (2011). Child custody disputes with the context of child welfare. Society forSocial Work and Research, 15th Annual Conference, Tampa, Florida. January 2011.

Saini, M., & Birnbaum, R. (2007). Unraveling the label of ‘high-conflict’: What factorsreally count in divorce and separated families. Ontario Association of Children'sAid Societies Journal, 51(1), 14–20.

Saini, M., Redmond, M., Polak, S., & Yadetta, E. (2011). Prevalence of high conflict sepa-ration and divorce and associated factors: A multi-method approach to map the evi-dence. Final Report. Family, Children & Youth Section Policy Sector Department ofJustice Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

Shaffer, M., & Bala, N. (2003). Wife abuse, child custody and access in Canada. In R. A.Geffner, R. S. Igelman, & J. Zellner (Eds.), The effects of intimate partner violence onchildren (pp. 253–276). New York: Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proce-dures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Thoennes, N., & Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse al-legations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 151–163.