Lawyers' role options in family dispute resolution

Both family lawyers and family dispute resolution practitioners are“gatekeepers” to the family law system.In this article the authors explore,with reference to recent research, the characteristics shown to be present in successful collaborative relationships between these two groups of professionals. They then apply Rundle’s spectrum of contributions that lawyers can make to mediation to the family law context and explore the various role options for family lawyers in family dispute resolution.

Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR) : An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government’s failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.

A cultural assessment of family dispute resolution: Findings about access, retention and outcomes from the evaluation of a Family Relationship Centre

The cultural appropriateness of human service processes is a major factor in determining the effectiveness of their delivery. Sensitivity to issues of culture is particularly critical in dealing with family disputes, which are generally highly emotive and require difficult decisions to be made regarding children, material assets and ongoing relationships. In this article we draw on findings from an evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre at Broadmeadows (FRCB) to offer some insights into and suggestions about managing cultural matters in the current practice of family dispute resolution (FDR) in Australia. The brief for the original research was to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of FDR services offered to culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities living within the FRCB’s catchment area, specifically members of the Lebanese, Turkish and Iraqi communities. The conclusions of the evaluations were substantially positive. The work of the Centre was found to illustrate many aspects of best practice but also raised questions worthy of future exploration. The current article reports on issues of access, retention and outcomes obtained by CALD clients at various stages of the FRCB service.

A cultural assessment of family dispute resolution: Findings about cultural appropriateness from the evaluation of a family relationship centre

The cultural appropriateness of human service processes is a major factor in determining the effectiveness of their delivery. Sensitivity to issues of culture is particularly critical in dealing with family disputes, which are generally highly emotive and require difficult decisions to be made regarding children, material assets and ongoing relationships. In this article we draw on findings from an evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre at Broadmeadows (FRCB) to offer some insights into and suggestions about managing cultural matters in the current practice of family dispute resolution (FDR) in Australia. The brief for the original research was to evaluate the cultural appropriateness of FDR services offered to culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities living within the FRCB’s catchment area, specifically members of the Lebanese, Turkish and Iraqi communities. The conclusions of the evaluations were substantially positive. The work of the Centre was found to illustrate many aspects of best practice but also raised questions worthy of future exploration. The current article reports on overall cultural appropriateness, particularly identifying barriers which may inhibit access and how acculturation may play a role in reducing perception of barriers. An earlier article reported on access, retention and outcomes for these CALD groups (Akin Ojelabi et al., 2011).

Inconsistencies in and the inadequacies of the family counselling and FDR confidentiality and admissibility provisions: The need for reform

In this article the author discusses issues arising from counselling and family dispute resolution (FDR) in relation to confidentiality and admissibility, such as whether an admission of abuse to a child, or a threat to harm the other parent, can be disclosed by the counsellor or family dispute resolution practitioner (FDRP) and used in court proceedings. It is found that the admissibility provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are far more narrowly defined than the confidentiality requirements and have been interpreted strictly by the courts. There are competing policy considerations: the strict “traditionalist” approach, that people can have absolute faith in the integrity of counsellors and mediators and in the confidential nature of the process, must be balanced against a more “protectionist” stance, being the individual rights of victims to have all relevant information placed before the court and to be protected from violence and abuse. It is suggested that legislative reform is required to ensure that courts balance these considerations appropriately and don’t compromise the safety of victims of abuse and family violence.

Non-adversarial advocates and gatekeepers : lawyers, FDR practitioners and co-operative post-separation parenting

The compulsory dispute resolution requirements in family law parenting cases create new roles and obligations for both lawyers and family dispute resolution (FDR) practitioners. This article will discuss how the legislative provisions impact on both sets of professionals in practice. It will also highlight the increased non-adversarial role of lawyers and a new role for FDR practitioners as “gatekeepers” to family courts in cases requiring FDR certificates.

Child focused and child inclusive family law dispute resolution : one year findings from a prospective study of outcomes

This prospective study compared outcomes over 1 year for two groups of separated parents, who attended mediation about their entrenched parenting disputes. The two treatments studied both aimed to improve the psychological resolution of parental conflict with associated reduction of distress for their children. The Child Focused intervention prioritised thought about the needs of children in high conflict divorce, but without any direct involvement of the children, while the Child Inclusive intervention incorporated separate consultation by a specialist with the children in each family, and consideration of their concerns with parents in the mediation forum. Measures were collected from parents and children prior to mediation commencing, and again three and twelve months after the conclusion of mediation. Significant and enduring reduction in levels of conflict and improved management of disputes occurred for both treatment groups in the year after mediation. Across all ages, children in both interventions perceived less frequent and intense conflict between their parents and better resolution of it, with a significant lowering of their related distress. The Child Inclusive intervention showed a number of independent effects not evident in the other treatment group, related to relationship improvements and psychological wellbeing. These effects were strongest for fathers and children. Agreements reached by the Child Inclusive group were significantly more durable and workable over the year, and these parents were half as likely to instigate new litigation over parenting matters in the year after mediation than were the Child Focused parents. The article considers possible mechanisms of change underpinning these outcomes.

An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).

Incorporating fairness into development of an integrated multi-agent online dispute resolution environment

The paper describes the development of an integrated multi-agent online dispute resolution environment called IMODRE that was designed to assist parties involved in Australian family law disputes achieve legally fairer negotiated outcomes. The system extends our previous work in developing negotiation support systems Family_Winner and AssetDivider. In this environment one agent uses a Bayesian Belief Network expertly modeled with knowledge of the Australian Family Law domain to advise disputants of their Best Alternatives to Negotiated Agreements. Another agent incorporates the percentage split of marital property into an integrative bargaining process and applies heuristics and game theory to equitably distribute marital property assets and facilitate further trade-offs. We use this system to add greater fairness to Family property law negotiations.

Alternative dispute resolution : are apology and forgiveness simply two sides of the one coin?

Alternative dispute resolution (a.d.r.) processes are entrenched in western style legal systems. Forms of dispute resolution are utilised within schools and health systems; built in to commercial contracts; found in workplaces, clubs and organisations; and accepted in general day-to-day community disputes. The a.d.r. literature includes references to ‘apology’, but is largely silent on ‘forgiveness’. Where an apology is offered as part of a dispute resolution process, practice suggests that formalised ‘forgiveness’ rarely follows. Mediators may agree there is a meaningful place for apology in dispute resolution processes, but are most unlikely to support a view that forgiveness, as a conscious act, has an equivalent place. Yet, if forgiveness is not limited to the ‘pardoning of an offence’, but includes a ‘giving up of resentment’, or the relinquishing of a grudge, then forgiveness may play an underestimated role in dispute management. In the context of some day-to-day dispute management practice, this paper questions whether forgiveness should follow an apology; and concludes that meaningful resolutions can be reached without any formal element of ‘forgiveness’ or absolution. However, dispute management practitioners need to be aware of the latent role other aspects of forgiveness may play for the disputing parties.