Just Court ADR

In a randomized controlled trial of family cases involving parents reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV), parents felt safer in and were more satisfied with shuttle and videoconference mediation than litigation. Importantly, they also indicated a preference of shuttle mediation over videoconference mediation. The study, conducted in Washington, DC, by Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, et al., is discussed in their article “Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Family Dispute Resolution: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Shuttle Mediation, Videoconferencing Mediation, and Litigation” (Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, February 2021).

For the study, the researchers compared traditional litigation (n = 67 cases), the process used for all cases prior to the study, to shuttle mediation (n = 64 cases) and videoconference mediation (n= 65 cases), two approaches designed to protect parent safety. All parents referred to mediation by the court were first screened for IPV by specially trained Dispute Resolution Specialists (DRSs). Based on the screening, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the IPV reported by either or both parents was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. Cases were considered ineligible if: the case involved an open child abuse case or required other emergency interventions due to immediate danger; a parent lived too far away to participate in mediation in person, was deemed incompetent for mediation (e.g., acutely psychotic), was incarcerated or had a pending criminal case that would interfere; or the parents were in a same-sex relationship (pilot work revealed that there were too few same-sex cases for study purposes). Eligible parents were then randomly assigned to one of the three groups.

Mediators were trained in both shuttle mediation and video mediation and were assigned to both types of mediation. In both shuttle and videoconferencing mediation, parents were in different rooms in the same building but not near one another. In shuttle mediation, the mediator met in person with each parent separately and shuttled back and forth between rooms. The parents never saw or spoke directly to each other; all communications were through the mediator. Mediators assigned to shuttle mediation had no discretion to change the process format.

In videoconferencing mediation, the mediator was in a third room. Both parents and the mediator had access to a web camera and a computer screen and could see and hear each other on the screen. The mediators took regular breaks to check to see if each parent was comfortable with continuing with the three-way videoconference or if they wanted to move to either only audio (with other parent and mediator) or to communicate individually by video with the mediator. Mediators could make such changes if concerned about parent safety or emotional wellbeing, and parents could turn off the video equipment in their rooms at any point.

Mediator Assessment of the Approaches

In 41.3% of videoconferencing cases, mediators said they had private, in-person meetings with one or both parents. Mediators were most likely to hold such meetings to get forms (e.g., agreement to mediate) signed by the parents. In 71.7% of videoconferencing cases, mediators reported holding private, individual video meetings with one or both. Mediators reported that these meetings took place to help the mediation process (e.g., when a parent was behaving inappropriately) or to help parents process what was happening.

Immediately after mediation, the mediators were asked to complete a survey. They were asked their perceptions of the mediation in terms of their own and each party’s safety, their own and each party’s comfort, about their feelings of safety and comfort as well as their perception of each parent’s safety and comfort and their perception of the appropriateness of the process used for that case.  Mediators felt equally safe in both mediation approaches and perceived both as being similarly safe for mothers and fathers. They had similar perceptions about comfort in mediation, although they indicated feeling more comfortable and satisfied in shuttle mediation as compared to videoconferencing.

In 90% of cases, mediators believed shuttle mediation was appropriate for the case. This was significantly lower for videoconference mediation, which they said was appropriate in 78% of cases. Mediators also were significantly more likely to say that cases in videoconference mediations should have been handled with a different approach than that cases in shuttle mediation should have been handled differently (58% vs. 35%). Unsurprisingly, the mediators believed mediation had a greater effect on the parents’ ability to reach agreement when they conducted shuttle mediation than when they conducted videoconference mediation.

Parent Assessment of the Approaches

Parents were asked to assess the process in which they participated immediately after conclusion, including traditional litigation. Parents felt safer and less fearful in mediation than in traditional litigation, with no difference between the two mediation approaches. Parents in mediation were also more satisfied with the process than parents in traditional litigation, again with no difference between the two mediation approaches. Asked whether they believed the process used for their case was appropriate for their case, parents in mediation were significantly more likely to agree than were parents who participated in traditional litigation (87% vs. 76%). As with safety and satisfaction, parent perception of appropriateness of videoconferencing and shuttle mediation did not differ significantly. A similar pattern was found in their response to nine questions that assessd the positive effects of the process, such as feeling heard, able to express feelings efficiency, fairness, parents being held accountable.

Interestingly, there were no differences in parents’ satisfaction with the outcome or whether the process was helpful in resolving the issues among the three approaches. However, among those who reached a final resolution, parents who mediated using either approach were more likely to believe that the parents would follow the resolution terms than those who went through the traditional court process. There was no difference in parents’ responses between the two mediated approaches.

Outcomes and Time

Videoconferenced cases were half as likely to reach agreement as cases in shuttle mediation (43% vs. 22%). Through coding the content of the document that resolved case issues (i.e., the mediated agreement or the court order), the researchers found no statistically significant group differences in legal custody, physical custody, or parenting time arrangements and few differences in the likelihood of the document specifying a variety of arrangements (e.g., how to handle missed parenting time) or including safety provisions (e.g., supervised child exchanges).

However, there were statistically significant differences across groups for some specifications in the resolution document that might help decrease risk of violence. These differences indicate that mediation might result in more details regarding issues related to possible safety. Specifically, final documents for cases that had mediation were more likely than final documents for cases in traditional litigation to: address interparental communication at all (56 vs. 31%); agree to limit interparental disputes in the children’s presence (44% for mediation vs. 14%); include aspirational language about interparental communication (e.g., parents will try to have civil discussions; 38% vs. 8%); and agree to limit parents’ passing of messages to one another through the child (35% vs. 10%).

The researchers found that mediated cases also fared well in terms of the time needed to resolve a case. Cases that went through the traditional process took 3 times as long to reach final resolution as mediation cases.

Conclusion

The researchers conclude that “in cases with parents reporting concerning levels of IPV, when both parents are independently willing to mediate, mediation designed with strong safety protocols and carried out in a protected environment by well-trained staff may be an appropriate alternative to court.” (Taken from the article abstract.) They state that their findings do not definitively favor either shuttle or videoconference mediation. However, they note there are suggestions in the data that shuttle mediation might be preferable, as it was more likely to lead to agreement and mediators seemed to prefer it. They suggest that as COVID has put restrictions on in-person processes, future researchers could examine shuttle mediation via video technology.  In the meantime, “longer term outcomes and additional research are needed to more clearly understand if videoconferencing mediation, as structured in this study, is as safe and appropriate as shuttle mediation for cases reporting high levels of IPV.”

A small study of family mediation in Spain paints a picture of what parties and mediators believe promotes the parties’ trust in the mediator and points out differences in perspectives between the two groups. Identification of these differences can lead to improved training and professional practice, according to the researchers (Joan Albert Riera Adrover, Maria Elena Cuatrero Castaner, Juan Jose, Montano Moreno). They discuss this in their article, “Mediators’ and Disputing Parties’ Perception of Trust-Building in Family Mediation” (Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2019).

For the study, the researchers recruited mediators from a single mediation provider organization. The mediators notified the parties of the research project at the outset of the mediation. If the parties consented to participate in the research, a researcher would meet with the parties at the end of the third joint session and had them complete a survey. Mediators also completed a survey at this time. In all, 31 mediators and 54 parties participated in the research over the course of a year. The mediators were primarily lawyers with an average of 1-6 years’ experience .

The researchers found eight factors which the parties were significantly more likely to say built trust with their mediator than compared to the mediator group. These were:

• The mediator is familiar with legal aspects relating to the dispute
• The mediator suggests an alternative or a way out of the dispute
• The mediator provides candid and frank input about the dispute
• The mediator does not linger too long on the dispute but advances toward its settlement
• The mediator is appointed by an authority, such as a reputed judge
• The mediator shows an interest in the parties’ mutual concerns and focuses on their common goals
• The mediator highlights the rules of mediation
• The mediator talks to the parties about informal matters as opposed to just talking about the dispute

Most of these should not be surprising. Indeed, for all of the above factors except suggesting an alternative and talking about informal matters, a majority of the mediators agreed with the parties about their importance for building trust. However, it does reinforce the notion that trust is about more than just rapport. Parties in this study trusted mediators who focused on resolution and presented alternative options to the parties.

It should be noted that there were numerous other factors for which a large majority of both mediators and parties said built trust. These included the mediator’s listening skills, fairness, impartiality, demeanor and capacity to understand the dispute. These all should be familiar to anyone involved in mediation, as they are generally considered necessary for trust-building.

This research is unique in that it matched up mediator and party perspectives on trust. It can help mediators to know what they should be emphasizing as they attempt to build trust. However, it was limited by a small sample size and lack of qualitative follow up to help elucidate the mediators’ and parties’ thinking.