Family mediation: which ethical model are we following?

Recent moves towards a non-legal presumption of child-inclusive family mediation propose removing the need for both parents to consent when a child is tested as Gillick–competent. This is intended to let consenting children share their experiences, and express their concerns and views for sensitive consideration by their parents, so that these can be taken into account in the dispute resolution process (J Walker and A Lake-Caroll ‘Child-inclusive divorce resolution: Time for Change’ [2015] Fam Law 695). This paper explores the potential consequences of adopting such a model, based on an earlier analysis of the ethical propositions informing four of the most prominent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) texts (Wilson, 2010). It contends that shifts of practice that involve overruling a dissenting parent have fundamental implications in terms of the mediator’s duty of care and, therefore, the communitarian principles upon which family mediation is founded. There should be further debate regarding how practising mediators should address the application of differing ethical models in circumstances where these are likely to compete with one another.