CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: A 25‐YEAR PERSPECTIVE

• Author: Leonard Edwards
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.00240.x
• Date: 01 January 2009
• Published date: 01 January 2009

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 47 No. 1, January 2009 69–80

© 2009 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Blackwell Publishing IncMalden, USAFCREFamily Court Review1531-24451744-1617© Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 2009XXX

Original Article

Edwards/CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATIONFAMILY COURT REVIEW

ARTICLES

CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: A 25-YEAR PERSPECTIVE

Hon. Leonard Edwards (ret)*

This article reviews the creation, development, and growth of child protection mediation (CPM) in the United

States. Starting with a few pilot projects in the 1970s, CPM has grown throughout the country. The article traces

child protection’s development through the publication of the

Resource Guidelines

and Model Courts and then

discusses what the necessary ingredients for a mediation program are. Mediation is then discussed from a

judicial perspective. Barriers to mediation are listed, followed by a discussion of special issues that arise

when developing and maintaining CPM programs. The article concludes with the observation that CPM is

now recognized as a best practice by most judges and court improvement professionals and that it continues

to grow.

Keywords:

child protection mediation

;

mediation

;

history of mediation

;

alternative dispute resolution

INTRODUCTION

She was the angriest woman I had ever seen in my courtroom. She walked into the court

aggressively, looking around at everyone angrily with disgust. She refused to talk with the

attorney who had been appointed to represent her and ignored the court assistant who tried

to explain what the court proceedings were all about. When I greeted her, she just glared

at me. When I tried to explain the nature of the court proceedings, her hostility flared up

as she stated, “This is all a farce. I don’t want anything to do with any of you.” I quickly

concluded that this was a situation that I could not manage in the formal courtroom setting

so I said to the assembled parties, “This case is referred to mediation.” She snapped back,

“I’m not doing any mediation. I don’t even know what that is.” I told her that I was referring

the case to mediation, that she had no choice in the matter, and that the mediation was going

to take place a week from today in the room across the hall. After some more back and

forth, she left the room in a huff.

Juvenile Dependency Court is a busy docket, with many cases and high emotions.

When I next saw this woman a week later, I had almost forgotten the ten minutes I had

spent with her the week before. Yet here she was, again without her court-appointed

attorney, walking into court after the mediation session I had ordered her to attend. She

was a different person. She even smiled when I greeted her. The deputy county counsel

(the attorney representing the children’s services agency) reported that the mediation was

successful and that she would recite the agreement between the parties. I asked the mother

if she understood and agreed with the terms of the agreement. She did, as did the attorney

for the child.

Then she spoke up. “I want to thank you, Judge, for sending me to mediation. It was a

positive experience—the only one I have had in this entire process.” We talked for a few

more minutes and that was the last I saw of her. The case had resolved with an agreement

Correspondence: leonard.edwards@jud.ca.gov