This article undertakes an interdisciplinary examination of child‐inclusive mediation (CIM) in divorce and separation mediation, particularly its implementation in the Czech Republic through the Mediation and Education Centre in Brno (MEDUC). It aims to offer a comparative analysis of MEDUC's unique non‐directive mediation model, which involves children's active participation in mediation processes, in contrast to the original Australian model of Child‐Inclusive Mediation and Counseling (CIMC). This paper uses a structured theoretical methodology combining comparative and conceptual analysis. Specifically, the comparative approach contrasts Australian and Czech practices and reveals key differences and similarities in legal frameworks, philosophical theories, and the roles of mediators and child specialists. Meanwhile, the conceptual analysis draws on an extensive literature review to explore the theoretical underpinnings of Australian and Czech family mediation approaches. The study identifies considerable flexibility in adapting CIP models in different legal and cultural settings. Although Australian practices heavily influence MEDUC, it has adapted these principles to fit its legal and cultural context. The article highlights the potential of combining human rights and therapeutic approaches, augmented by developmental psychology and international child rights standards, to create a more nuanced and child‐sensitive mediation practice. The article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary, adaptive approach to practice involving children in family mediation. It suggests that integrating psychological and legal‐philosophical theories can lead to a robust model that can be adapted to different cultural and legal settings. It advocates for future research to empirically evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of these adapted models and explore how cultural perceptions of childhood and family roles may influence the success of CIP.
