Empowering Parents in Child Protection Mediation: Challenges and Opportunities

Abstract

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.

Is it ‘fair'? Representation of children, young people and parents in an adversarial court system

“…However, there is evidence that alternative dispute resolution approaches do not automatically solve representation issues and inequality: the power imbalance remains where the state is a party to the dispute (Firestone ; Morgan et al . ).…”

“…However, there is evidence that alternative dispute resolution approaches do not automatically solve representation issues and inequality: the power imbalance remains where the state is a party to the dispute (Firestone 2009;Morgan et al 2013). Issues of participation of children and procedural fairness remain (Dickens et al 2013;Maughan & Daglis 2005;Morgan et al 2013;Victorian Law Reform Commission 2010;Walsh & Douglas 2012).…”

Mediation Research: A Current Review

“…Many current scholars and practitioners consider mediation to be an industrial‐grade Swiss army knife — capable of accomplishing any task — and expect mediators to set their goals accordingly. That is, they expect mediators to have goals of bringing about agreement (Firestone 2009), improving the relationship between the disputants (Craig 2008), attaining social justice (Neves 2009) and social transformation (Li‐On 2009), reducing sexual discrimination (Stallworth, McPherson, and Rute 2001), allowing the disputants to blow off steam (Bleemer 2009), preventing future conflicts (Wort 2009), using efficiency/speed (Zimmer 2010), solving problems (Zwier and Guernsey 2005), forestalling future problems (Kay 2009), reducing future costs (Kloppenberg 2001), reducing violence (Mazadoorian 2009), improving communication between the disputants (Portman 2009), reducing stress (Wiseman 2008), integrating relationships (Stimmel 2002), and overseeing restitution (Umbreit, Coates, and Roberts 2000).…”

Need to Be Heard: Increasing Child Participation in Protection Mediation Through the Implementation of Model Standards*

“…148 As an individual's capacity can vary, a mediator must not rely upon a single examination; rather they should remain alert to any indication that capacity is called into question. 149 The developmental standing of the child must be such that the child is capable of understanding the basic nature of the mediation process. 150 The child must also be capable of expressing his or her wants and wishes or capable of providing input that has some bearing on the issues being discussed.…”