Unintended Consequences of Coercive Control Legislation
Research across many fields demonstrates that when consumers participate in an advance orientation (AO) they are more satisfied with the service, the service is likely to be more efficient and effective, and there are many fewer complaints about the provider. This program introduces AO to family law. Participants learn to distinguish AO from informed consent and from coaching. Preliminary data documenting the value of AO for parenting plan evaluations (PPE) are discussed. The programs available via DefuseDivorce.com are introduced as example of what AO looks like in practice. Coercive control legislation is being enacted across the US and in other countries prompting critical questions about the implications of these new laws. While coercive control is recognized as a damaging pattern of abuse, to what extent should it be codified in family law statutes? What are the underlying assumptions and potential consequences, particularly for historically marginalized victims and communities? The opening plenary session will include a thought-provoking discussion of the multifaceted issues and context regarding this legislation trend.

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree):

  1 2 3 4 5
1. Describe what coercive control is and is not.
2. Recognize assumptions and implications of coercive control legislation.

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Tracy Shoberg, JD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Anadelle M. Martinez-Mullen, JD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Carla R. Adkison-Johnson, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 5. Please rate presenter: Magistrate Richard Altman (Ret.) (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 6. Please rate moderator: Kathleen McNamara, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 7. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the symposium brochure

Question Title

* 8. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 9. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 10. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 11. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 12. Additional Comments

T