16th Symposium on Child Custody: Workshop 30 Evaluation

Building Bridges: Establishing a Dispute Resolution Department in Your Court

Creating a Dispute Resolution Department in family court is paramount in modern legal systems. Family disputes often involve highly sensitive matters where traditional litigation may exacerbate tensions and strain relationships. By establishing a specialized, comprehensive, multi-disciplinary department dedicated to providing multiple dispute resolution avenues, family courts can provide families a new and hopeful path forward in resolving conflict. This presentation explores the practical considerations of creating and integrating a department within a Court environment.

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. Identify at least three services and programs that can derive from a Dispute Resolution Department.	1. Identify at least three services and programs that can derive from a Dispute Resolution Department. 1	1. Identify at least three services and programs that can derive from a Dispute Resolution Department. 2	1. Identify at least three services and programs that can derive from a Dispute Resolution Department. 3	1. Identify at least three services and programs that can derive from a Dispute Resolution Department. 4	1. Identify at least three services and programs that can derive from a Dispute Resolution Department. 5
2. List three benefits of a multi-disciplinary dispute resolution department in your Court.	2. List three benefits of a multi-disciplinary dispute resolution department in your Court. 1	2. List three benefits of a multi-disciplinary dispute resolution department in your Court. 2	2. List three benefits of a multi-disciplinary dispute resolution department in your Court. 3	2. List three benefits of a multi-disciplinary dispute resolution department in your Court. 4	2. List three benefits of a multi-disciplinary dispute resolution department in your Court. 5

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Patricia O’Malley, JD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

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

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Kimberly Kent, MSW, LISW-S (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

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

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Laura Bradford, MA, LPCC (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

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

Question Title

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

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

16th Symposium on Child Custody: Workshop 30 Evaluation

Question Title

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

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Patricia O’Malley, JD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Kimberly Kent, MSW, LISW-S (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Laura Bradford, MA, LPCC (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

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

Question Title

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

Question Title

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

Question Title

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

Question Title

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

Question Title

* 10. Additional Comments