Mediation in child protection cases: The impact of third‐party intervention on parental compliance attitudes

Abstract

Findings from this demonstration project involving mediation in child protection cases indicate a positive effect on parents' attitude toward intervention plans.

Mediation and empowerment in child protection cases

“…The findings in this research are consistent with Mayer's (1989) conclusions in his study of the Denver program: (1) Mediation does not change personalities or alter fundamental power realities that exist outside of the mediation process.…”

Empowering Parents in Child Protection Mediation: Challenges and Opportunities

“…While Mayer (1989) suggests that caseworkers "represent the coercive authority of the state" (p. 89), he concludes that "[t]he use of mediation to help parents and caseworkers develop a mutually acceptable intervention plan appears to help resolve this dilemma" (p. 89). This power imbalance is a difficult challenge for mediators to address, but when parents are empowered to meaningfully participate in mediation, the coercive potential of the state need not prevent all parties from reaching a consensus on issues appropriate for settlement in mediation.…”

Judging the fairness of mediation: A critical framework

“…Balanced with the disputant assessment of fairness is an assessment of penalties for noncompliance. If the penalties are severe enough, an unfair agreement could produce what Mayer (1989) calls "alienative compliance" (discussed below), but we would also see a higher relitigation rate that does not appear to exist. Blades (1985) reports that mediated agreements are more frequently honored when compared with adjudication.…”

“…In a recent study of child protection cases, Mayer (1989) found that mediation changes the nature of compliance. Mayer points out three types of compliance: normative, where compliance is based on a belief that the agreement is fair and in the best interests of the family; utilitarian, which finds the agreement more beneficial in terms of costs and rewards; and alienative, in which compliance takes place to avoid potential legal problems.…”