No abstract

This article explores issues associated with mutual claims of domestic violence in the context of research on gender and violence, and in the context of litigation tactics commonly employed by perpetrators in child custody and access cases. Quotations from parents involved in such cases illustrate why accurate assessment of mutual cliams requires complete information about social context and the analysis of patterns of domination, power and control in the relationship over time. Recent developments in Canadian law ought to enhance the ability of judges to take such evidence into account. The article aims to provide a lens through which to understand and assess such cases.

This article explores arguments for and against proposals for statutory changes that would require Canadian judges to consider partner or “spousal” abuse when making decisions about child custody and access, in terms of the likely implications for women. The author discusses, in historic context, the relationships of social change to the evolution of social ideology and professional “knowledge” about gender and family and the influences of these on the evolution of family law, in order to demonstrate that legal changes alone are unlikely to produce positive benefits for abused women and their children. Moreover, an analysis of the legal discourse of judges as reported in the Canadian Reports on Family Law between 1983 and 1996 suggests the need for caution. Instead of judicial sensitivity to the special vulnerabilities of women in abusive situations, the case law indicates that judges are applying an “objective” incidents-based approach to assessments of abuse. Because this approach ignores the special vulnerabilities of women and makes it appear that abuse is symmetrical by gender, women may be disadvantaged if judges are required to deny or limit abuser's access to, or custody of, their children. The author concludes that, if what is intended is the protection of abused women and children, the solution lies less in giving more power to judges than in promoting social change through collective action, the evolution of professional “knowledge” that ultimately will find reflection in law, and the allocation of tangible resources for the benefit of abused women and their children.

This article explores the education and training needed by family and divorce mediators, and some of the professional obstacles to future educational developments. These matters, and the issues of mediator education, the attitudes of family lawyers and mediators toward each other, and the early disciplinary formation of mediation, are examined through the eyes of family mediators and lawyers practicing in the Greater London area in 1987 and 1988. The study reveals the historical educational shortcomings of practicing mediators and the problematic tendency of untrained mediators to rely on methods adapted from other disciplines. It suggests that limiting mediation practice to members of particular disciplines is unwarranted, and it points out instead the importance of personal mediator characteristics. Although the lawyers and mediators alike recommended fundamental educational improvements, the study notes the need for caution lest educational developments provoke changes in the essential nature of mediation.

This article discusses the design and implementation of a national certification process forfamily mediators by Family Mediation Canada (FMC) in 1999, us well asfindingsfrom data collected during the pilot testing of the certification process. Debates continue about theoretical orientation, best practices, and thus thefeasibility of standards of practice. This article argues that although these debates are vital to disciplinary growth, they deflect attention from areus offundamental consensus. Professional practice and certification standards are designed using one of two approaches. The first approach is expert-driven and evaluative and focuses on dflerences among practitioners. In this approach, experts evaluate differences and then propose the best model and standards ofpractice. The second approach is interestbused andfacilitative. It builds on areus of consensus among practitioners. Facilitators use mediation methods to support practitioner self-empowerment and self-determination in the design of practice and certijication standards. This article argues that adoption of the second approach was the key to the success of the FMC process.The Family Mediation Canada certification program is a model for the field both in its orientation and its implementation -Michael Lang (in Pradyznski, 1999) The results of the evaluation justify the implementation of the certification process nationally.