The ‘child’s best interests’ as an argumentative resource in family mediation sessions

Abstract

We used Discursive Psychology to study the claims and arguments which occur when 'the child's best interests' is produced as a resource in family mediation settings. Analysis draws on data from three pairs of separated or separating parents attempting to resolve child contact or residency disputes through mediation. Our analysis focuses on the tendency of claims to the abstract notion of the child's best interests to exacerbate conflict, especially as parents drew on conflicting research in this area. Changing expectations of fathering could be observed in the men's argumentative positioning, and this was taken up in different ways by ex-partners and by mediators. Participants aligned themselves with mediators' statements by picking up details of mediators' language, hampering mediators' attempted neutrality. The problematic nature of acknowledging the intensity of emotions in this process was also highlighted.

The Moral Order in Family Mediation: Negotiating Competing Values

“…Her moral stance draws on her identity as a good mother who protects her children from ideas, activities, and relationships that she deems inappropriate. Although mediation norms, along with UK family law in general, start with a presumption that close involvement with both parents is in the best interest of the children, for Martha, her moral concern trumps the obligation for contact (for analysis of discourses around the child's best interests in the mediation data, see Smithson, Barlow, Hunter, and Ewing ). We can see the conflict between Martha's identity as a good mother concerned with the welfare of her children, on the one hand, and, on the other, the mediation demand for her to be a cooperative ex‐partner working collaboratively.…”

“…The child's undisputed happiness and good adjustment provide a warrant for continuing contact. They have a happy child and “mustn't lose sight of that.” There is a value invoked here within the compliment as an explicit value of mediation, one set out at the start of the process, that parties should focus on the “best interests of the child” (Ewing, Hunter, Barlow, and Smithson ; Smithson et al ). It may also be a rebuke to having lost sight of the mediation goals or norms at this point in the process.…”

Situating children in divorce mediation in South Africa and Australia: A comparative study

“…Another benefit of hearing the voices of children in divorce mediation is that it may enhance the chances of reconciliation between parents. Even if parents do not reconcile, child involvement in mediation will help them communicate more effectively (Smithson et al, 2015). While the UNCRC and ACRWC recognise hearing a child's voice as a fundamental human right, and despite the above arguments for its benefits in divorce mediation, there is still considerable resistance to its realisation.…”

I didn’t say that! Uses of SAY in mediation discourse

“…Stokoe, 2013;Vasilyeva, 2010) to conflict resolution studies (e.g. Garcia, 2000;Jacobs and Aakhus, 2002;Smithson et al, 2015;Stokoe and Hepburn, 2005) and argumentation theory (e.g. Greco Morasso, 2011), that have advanced our understanding of the mediation process and the mediators' role in particular.…”