Child's view best counter to court cases
The Age
Thursday July 9, 2009
ACRIMONIOUS separations are less likely to end up in court if the children's views are included during mediation, compared to cases where only parents are involved, according to findings considered by the Federal Government as it conducts an evaluation of family law reforms.Since last year, mediation has been compulsory for separating couples where there is a dispute over child contact, living arrangements or property, except in cases of abuse or domestic violence. The aim of compulsory mediation at a government-financed family relationship centre or other service is to prevent families from going through the Family Court. But many relationship centres do not consult children as part of their parents' mediation.For the first time, a Government-funded study has tracked more than 130 families and found that in cases where the views of children are sought during mediation, the children four years later reported lower conflict between their parents and the family was less likely to end up in court than in mediation that did not involve a child's input.The first type is child-inclusive practice in which a specialist interviews the child and reports their views back to their parents. The other type, child-focused mediation, involves parents only, and the mediator talks to parents about the needs of the child but the child is not interviewed.When the children in the study were asked: "What's it like to live the way you do now?", 81 per cent of children whose parents went through child-inclusive mediation said it was good or great, compared with 47 per cent of children whose parents had undergone child-focused mediation.La Trobe University clinical child psychologist and study author Associate Professor Jennifer McIntosh, whose clinic practises both types of mediation, found that families involved in child-inclusive mediation went to court half as often over parenting issues - but usually due to property disputes. "This is a powerful intervention in the right hands and what this data shows is the potential to put families on a firmer footing post-divorce," she said. "It is very effectively keeping people out of court over parenting issues."But Professor McIntosh said it was not appropriate for all families. Conflict was sometimes so entrenched that a family had to go to court. She said families should be screened for suitability.The report is being considered by Attorney-General Robert McClelland. His spokesman said the Government financed family relationship centres to provide family-dispute resolution services. "It is a matter for each centre to determine the most appropriate dispute resolution model, in the best interests of the child, on a case by case basis," he said.But Lilia Szarski, a family-dispute resolution trainer and clinical supervisor at Relationships Australia, said family relationship centres were not financed specifically to provide child-inclusive mediation, which requires trained specialists. Some do not have the resources, and for some families it is not appropriate.Ms Szarski said the child-inclusive approach worked well if parents were willing to hear the views of children. "Can parents hear something that they don't like? Sometimes they might have an assumption that what the child is saying will support their view of the world," she said.
© 2009 The Age
Share This