In the traditional family law and child protection litigation where the court is asked to make determinations based on the best interests of aminor, the adversarial, rights-based model often fails to serve the interests of children and families and may be more harmful than beneficial to children relative to other possible methods of dispute resolution. This article examines the shortcomings of such an adversarial, rights-based model; briefly highlights the literature on dispute resolution systems design; and then proposes a new approach to better serve the interests of children in family law and child protection cases.As many others have previously discussed, the adversary system is often unhealthy for children.' In the traditional family law litigation process and the child protection system where the court is asked to make determinations based on the best interests of a minor, the adversarial, rights-based model typically fails to serve the interests of children and families and may be more harmful than beneficial to children relative to other possible methods of dispute resolution. SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ADVERSARY SYSTEMOur legal system generally relies on the notion that adversaries in a legal dispute will draw forth all information relevant to the contest in the process of putting forward their best positions, thereby allowing the decision maker to determine the "truth" and to make the best decision. Although the goal of an adversarial, rights-based model is to best serve the interests of children, the current system has a number of shortcomings that undermine the best intentions of the professionals involved. ''L.Qgulizution" of human problems. The best interests of children in divorce and child protection cases have become defined as primarily a legal problem; in reality, they are much more complex psychological, social, and legal problems that typically become intertwined into other issues such as child support. Family relationships have become "legalized" in such a way that the system loses sight of the human problems in context and focuses only on addressing answers to the legal issues. The failure to better examine family problems contextually results in little recognition for the ecological perspective of family dynamics. Greater understanding of cultural mores, for example, has no place in a system bound by the act of fitting evidence into the fixed definitions of a statute. The law is not the appropriate forum for assisting dysfunctional families to function better. Resolution of the legal case often does little to improve or resolve the underlying family dynamics.

In child protection cases, the mental health evaluator is required to have a broad range of expertise in family violence and child and adult psychological issues. This article reviews epidemiological as well as other quantitative data to provide an empirical foundation by which to understand the problem of family violence, the characteristics of abusers and victims, and the consequences to the child who is a witness to or victim of family violence. Forensic evaluation guidelines and recommendations for structuring child protection evaluations are addressed.

One of the greatest challenges that parents face in child protection mediation (CPM) is to voice their concerns and negotiate on a relatively equal basis with the other mediation participants. This article considers how imbalances of power, limited confidentiality protection, and the personal problems that bring parents into the child protection process can limit a parent's ability to exercise self‐determination in mediation and offers guidance for mediators seeking to conduct CPM in a manner that effectively empowers parents to meaningfully and collaboratively participate in mediation.

In the traditional family law and child protection litigation where the court is asked to make determinations based on the best interests of a minor, the adversarial, rights‐based model often fails to serve the interests of children and families and may be more harmful than beneficial to children relative to other possible methods of dispute resolution. This article examines the shortcomings of such an adversarial, rights‐based model; briefly highlights the literature on dispute resolution systems design; and then proposes a new approach to better serve the interests of children in family law and child protection cases.

Situated in the litigious state of Florida, UF Health implemented its mandatory pre‐suit mediation program in 2008 to compensate meritorious medical malpractice claims quickly, combat increasing attorney fees and costs, reduce frivolous lawsuits, and facilitate early, confidential communication to enhance the patient‐provider relationship. Data analysis over the program's eight‐year history demonstrates positive impacts on legal expenses and resolution time; results show a reduction in legal expenses of 87 percent as compared to traditional litigation and average receipt‐to‐resolution time of less than six months. The authors examine the Florida infrastructure supporting the program's success and offer recommendations for future expansions.