Participation, agreement and reduced acrimony through family mediation: Benefits for the ambivalent client in a mandatory setting

• Published date: 01 June 2024
• Author: G. Heard,A. Lohan,J. Petch,J. Milic,A. Bickerdike
• Date: 01 June 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21426

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Participation, agreement and reduced acrimony

through family mediation: Benefits for the

ambivalent client in a mandatory setting

G. Heard

1

| A. Lohan

2

| J. Petch

3

| J. Milic

3

|

A. Bickerdike

1

1

Relationships Australia Victoria,

Camberwell, Victoria, Australia

2

Institute for Social Science Research,

The University of Queensland,

Indoorooopilly, Queensland, Australia

3

Relationships Australia Queensland,

Eight Mile Plains, Queensland, Australia

Correspondence

A. Lohan, Institute for Social Science

Research, The University of Queensland,

80 Meiers Road, Indoorooopilly,

Queensland 4068, Australia.

Email: a.lohan@uq.edu.au

Funding information

Federation of Relationships Australia

Abstract

In Australia, it is mandatory for separating couples to

attempt Family Dispute Resolution (FDR/mediation)

before taking a parenting matter to court. In this context

some clients may attend FDR solely as a means of

accessing court processes. This article examines key out-

comes across a large sample of FDR clients in a commu-

nity sector organization. Participation, rates of agreement,

levels of satisfaction, and levels of acrimony are assessed

for the sample as a whole and for a subgroup of those indi-

cating their intention to proceed to court. Strong rates of

participation, agreement, and satisfaction are reported for

the full sample, and significant reductions in acrimony are

evident among those who reached agreement in FDR. We

find that those who indicate ambivalence to negotiating

parenting matters in FDR nevertheless derive benefit from

participation in terms of reduced acrimony, satisfaction

with the process, and reaching some level of agreement.

1|INTRODUCTION

As elsewhere, family law court processes in Australia are costly both to individuals and to gov-

ernment (Productivity Commission, 2014). Since reforms to the family law system in 2006,

Received: 26 November 2023 Accepted: 16 February 2024

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21426

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

© 2024 Relationships Australia. Conflict Resolution Quarterly published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2024;41:573–590. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq 573

separating couples with parenting disputes are required to attend mediation—known as Family

Dispute Resolution (FDR) in Australia—and to make a “genuine effort”to resolve their dis-

putes before they can file in court (Family Law Act, 1975 (Cth), s601 [Family Law Act]).

Though these reforms were primarily a means of reducing pressure on the court system arising

from strong demand for the adjudication of family matters, reduced post-separation conflict

over parenting matters was also a stated policy objective (Parkinson, 2013).

The reforms greatly increased the number of clients accessing FDR, with 65 Family Rela-

tionship Centres (FRCs) established around Australia to facilitate this growth (Kaspiew

et al., 2009; Moloney et al., 2010; Qu, 2019). However, in a mandated context, mediation may

become a “tick-box”exercise for some (Kovach, 1997). The “genuine effort”requirement serves

as a statement of expectations, but is ultimately subjective and is of course difficult, if not

impossible, for a mediator to enforce (Astor, 2010; Kovach, 1997). Qualitative studies suggest

that a subset of clients attending FDR would not voluntarily do so, and some have no intention

of reaching agreement in this setting (Fehlberg & Millward, 2013; Heard et al., 2021). This

“ambivalence”towards mediation is supported by Morris et al. (2016), who found that 68% of

524 participating parents who registered for FDR withdrew from the process before joint ses-

sions.

1

Yet there is little, if any, understanding of the role of client commitment to participation

among those who do progress to joint mediation in mandated settings, and the effect of this

commitment, or lack thereof, on outcomes.

In this paper, we present data from a national study on the outcomes of the FDR service

offered by one of the largest community-sector providers in Australia. We consider the effective-

ness of FDR on several key measures including participation and agreement rates, satisfaction

and levels of acrimony. Across these measures, we examine whether results differ for those cli-

ents who attend FDR with the stated intention of taking their cases to court.

1.1 |Measuring outcomes in FDR

A parenting agreement and/or property settlement is usually the primary objective of parties

attending mediation, and rates of agreement or settlement may be used as headline indicators

for the success or otherwise of mediation processes.

2

Governments fund, subsidize and

(in Australia) mandate mediation services primarily so that separating couples might avoid

costlier court processes in their efforts to reach resolution. Accordingly, the success of media-

tion in diverting divorce cases from court was an early focus of research as mediation emerged

and grew in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the United States (Irving et al., 1981 in

Pearson & Thoennes, 1984; Pearson & Thoennes, 1982 in Emery & Wyer, 1987b; Emery &

Wyer, 1987a).

Client satisfaction with mediation has also been a longstanding focus. Numerous studies

across diverse settings have shown that client satisfaction with mediation is high (Kelly, 1989;

Kelly & Gigy, 1988; Shaw, 2010; Wade, 1997; Wong et al., 2019), and higher among clients of

mediation than among litigants, including in studies where families have been randomly

assigned to one or the other process (Emery & Wyer, 1987b; Kelly, 2004). Notably, satisfaction

with the mediation process is shown to be independent of mediation outcomes. While parenting

and property outcomes tend to be similar to those achieved through legal means,

3

mediating cli-

ents are more likely to judge that they have had equal influence over the terms of their parent-

ing agreements and property settlements and, therefore, consider them fairer (Kelly, 1989;

Kelly, 1991; Pearson, 1991).

574 HEARD ET AL.