Family and divorce mediation: A comparative analysis of international programs

Abstract

Increasing rates of divorce, the consequent strain on the resources of the legal system, and the growing awareness that the adversarial court forum is not an appropriate setting for dealing with intense emotions has led, since the 1970s, to an increase in the provision of alternative means of dispute resolution for families in conflict. One such alternative is mediation.Although mediation has been a part of human history (Brown, 1982;Folberg, 1983;Irving, 1980), western societies have primarily used mediation in labor disputes and for international concerns. The application of mediation to family disputes has a limited history, having evolved rapidly since the mid 1970s. Mediation is emerging as a viable complement to the adversarial divorce in various locations throughout the world. Method, Definitions, and LimitationsThis chapter is the result of exploratory field research on the development and use of mediation as a means of dispute resolution in family courts in four international locations: Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.; Sydney, J. A. Lemmon (ed.). Dewloping F m i l y Mediation. Mediation Quarterly, no. 17. San Francisco: Jos~ey-Bass, Fall 1987. 83Kathy Foy is an M.S. W. candidate at

A Model for Telephone Mediation

“…When respondent refusals to mediate are considered in the group of mediations in which agreement did not result, the agreement rate is 56%. Both figures are typical of the range of agreement rates reported (approximately one half to three quarters of the mediating families) by court-connected mediation services (Bahr et al, 1987;Emery & Jackson, 1989;Emery & Wyer, 1987b;Foy, 1987;Pearson & Thoennes, 1984Salius & Maruzo, 1988).…”

The acceptance of family mediation in Australia

“…The court counselor and registrar procedures provide a free and universally available service of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to parties with marital disputes. The Australian success (that is, agreement) rate of 50 percent to 70 percent is comparable with that of the mediation service in the Honolulu Family Court (Foy, 1987). The success of these court conciliation structures has provided a means to avoid litigation.…”