Family Mediation in Child Custody Cases and the Concealment of Domestic Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While mediation is commonly used in custody negotiation, there is no consensus regarding its applicability in domestic violence cases. The aim of this qualitative study in Italy was to explore the role of family mediation in the management of child custody in cases involving domestic violence. Semistructured interviews were conducted with lawyers ( N = 5), social workers ( N = 15), and abused women who had separated from their children’s fathers ( N = 13). Legal documents were also analyzed. The results showed that violence against women and children had often been concealed during mediation, as the professionals involved had failed to detect domestic violence or had labeled it as conflicts. Moreover, the “parental couple” had been dissociated from the “marital couple,” and the responsibility for the abuse had been attributed to both parents. As a result, women and children had been blamed and had experienced secondary victimization, while the perpetrators’ patterns of power and control had continued. The results also revealed that those professionals had not known about and had not applied the Istanbul Convention, which provides guidelines to ensure women’s and children’s safety. Recommendations highlight the need to account for the complexity of domestic violence cases, to hold perpetrators responsible for the abuse, and to support the victims.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".