A

accreditation systems 45, 57, 62
adjustments to arrangements post-mediation 84
adverse childhood experiences 54
advocacy 28–29
age and understanding of children
age-appropriate information provision 15, 36, 142–143
barriers to uptake 54, 61
‘beings’ versus ‘becomings’ 16
due weight 108–110
‘evolving capacities’ of children 13–16, 35, 109, 131, 147, 148, 151
FMC Code of Practice 148–149
process of CIM 76–77
proper consideration 107–108
relational family autonomy 131
universal provision of mediation 30
agency
age and understanding of children 16, 30
Children Act 1989 12
children’s lack of 8
due weight 109
‘evolving capacities’ of children 14
Gillick principle 12
recognition of children’s 8–9
relational family autonomy 8–9
agreements, reaching 95–96, 104–112, 116–117
see also decision-making
Al-Alosi, H. 112
Aldridge, J. 136
alienation 91, 124
Allport, L. 141
ambience 77–78, 82
approachability of mediators 87
arbiter, children as 31
article 3 rights (UNCRC) 11–12, 139
article 5 rights (UNCRC) 9, 13, 14, 30, 86, 131, 138, 143
article 8 rights (ECHR) 129
article 12 rights (UNCRC)
adult-child decision-making relationship 41
age and understanding of children 76
awareness of 28, 90, 139–140
barriers to article 12 rights 74–75, 130
checklist for participation 133
CIM as vehicle for 128, 132, 133–139
citizenship education 140
Code of Practice (FMC) 148
and the concept of ‘autonomy’ 8, 9
court context 3–4
deprivation of 74–75, 130
due weight 108–109
duty on State Parties 13, 54, 74, 76, 103, 150–151
‘evolving capacities’ of children 13–16
family justice system 10–13
‘influence’ 106
involving child from the outset 74
Lundy’s model 73, 158–159
no leeway for discretion 150
presumption of capacity 76
purpose of CIM 47
statutory changes 136–139
training in CIM 144, 145
unqualified rights 141, 149
see also Lundy’s model
article 13 rights (UNCRC) 86
article 19 rights (UNCRC) 86
‘audience’ 15, 25, 33–35, 85–94, 101, 122
autistic children 68
autonomy
adult-only concept 6–7, 8, 129–133
children’s 8–9, 30
decision-making 29
‘evolving capacities’ of children 13–16, 35, 109, 131, 147, 148, 151
neoliberalism 5, 6–10
parental autonomy versus children’s rights 129–133
shifting from parental autonomy norm 128
see also ‘relational family autonomy’ principle
awareness of CIM 55–56, 57, 139–140
practitioner awareness 55–56, 57
parental awareness 139
children’s awareness 139–140

B

Barlow, A. 5, 9, 14, 17, 18, 27, 35, 36, 45, 48, 51, 55, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 76, 90, 94, 106, 113, 122, 128, 155
barriers to access to information and support 51–52
barriers to article 12 rights 74–75, 130
barriers to uptake of CIM 44–71, 129, 145–150
parental reluctance to attend 66–67
‘beings’ versus ‘becomings’ 12, 16, 54, 131–132
Bell, F. 48, 88, 104, 119, 120, 124
benefits of CIM 35, 48–49, 74, 116–121, 139–140
‘best interests’ 9, 11–12, 103, 107
biscuits 78, 94
blame for separation 37
British Academy 127
Brown, T. 46, 60, 62, 96, 119, 132
Brown, W. 5, 6
buddy systems 31
Butler, I. 33, 35, 43, 86, 105
Butler-Sloss, E. 3

C

Campbell, A. 46, 60, 62, 96, 119, 132
capacity, children’s 76, 106, 148–149
see also age and understanding of children
capacity, parental 68, 125
see also suitability screening
Carson, R. 27, 32, 36, 51, 74, 86, 106, 128
Cashmore, J. 26, 27, 83, 90, 105, 106, 109, 112, 116, 117, 118
checklist for participation 133, 145, 160–161
child arrangements orders 12
child consultation practices 19, 22, 45, 46, 62, 143, 147
child-inclusive mediation (CIM)
benefits of 35, 48–49, 74, 116–121, 139–140
definition 18–21
purpose of 44–51
risks of 32–35, 81–83
ChildLine 24, 52, 142
Children Act 1989 4, 10, 12, 136, 138–139
Children and Families Act 2014 7, 8, 137
Children’s Rights Bill 16
‘choosing between parents’ 66, 83
CIM Working Group (2017) 20
citizenship education 140
clarity, achieving 113, 114–115, 117
Cleveland Report (1988) 3
Code of Practice (FMC) 6, 20, 79, 105, 132, 147–149
coercive control 79, 91, 93, 99, 121
communication between parents, lack of improvement outcomes in 94–95, 114, 121–122
communication methods 75
see also invitations to attend CIM
confidence, practitioner 57–59
see also skill levels of mediators
confidentiality 78, 87, 141
consent 67, 141
continuity of professionals 52, 80
contraindications 94, 141
see also suitability screening
costs of CIM 56–57, 94, 100, 146–147
Council of Europe 20, 129
counselling 23, 27, 31, 40, 69, 114, 141
counterproductivity 24
COVID-19 77, 111
cultural differences 52

D

Daly, A. 29, 109
data analysis methods 156–157
Deater-Deckard, K. 112
‘decisional privacy’ 35, 41, 70
decision-making
children as ‘beings’ 16
children as legal objects 3, 21, 23, 128
children’s inclusion as principle 23, 26, 29, 40
exclusion of children from 4, 48
explanations of decisions 26, 87, 99, 108, 126
‘influence’ 107–110
neoliberal ‘autonomy’ 6–8
parental autonomy versus children’s rights 130
risks of CIM 32, 34
self-esteem stemming from child’s inclusion in 106
see also ‘relational family autonomy’ principle
declining invitations 82, 83
see also refusal to attend
default, including child’s views as 30, 46, 59, 130, 132, 140–142, 151
Dennison, G. 74
developmental benefits for children 118–119
Diduck, A. 7, 54
different mediators to parents 80–81
dignity 16, 37–38
Dimopoulos, G. 35, 41, 70, 71, 109, 128, 145
dissatisfactions with CIM process 99–100, 112, 115–116, 121–124
domestic abuse cases 79, 94, 99
domineering parents 99, 100
Douglas, G. 144
Doyle, M. 134
Dunn, J. 112
durability of agreements 111–112, 120

E

early assessment of needs 39–40
Eekelaar, J. 7
eldest siblings 79
emotional readiness (parents’) 67–68
emotional wellbeing benefits 19, 22, 35, 51, 85–86, 88–89, 113, 117–118, 127, 144, 146
empowerment 5, 49–50, 97, 102, 109, 115, 116, 118
environment for CIM 77–78, 82
Equality Act 2010 16
European Convention on Human Rights 129
‘evolving capacities’ of children 13–16, 35, 109, 131, 147, 148, 151
Ewing, J. 17, 48, 55, 69, 70, 72, 90, 156
expectations management 83, 125, 143
explanations (to children) of CIM process 75, 82–83, 87, 131
explanations of decisions 26, 87, 99, 108, 126

F

face-to-face versus remote mediation 77–78
Family Court Advisers 75
family court backlogs 146
Family Justice Review (Norgrove, 2011) 1–3, 4, 133–134
family justice system reform 19, 128
Family Justice Young People’s Board (FJYPB) 18, 28, 31, 52, 143, 154, 155
Family Law Act 1996 137
Family Law Protocol 12
Family Mediation Council (FMC) 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 20, 55, 57, 58, 67, 75, 79, 80, 101, 105, 132, 133, 135, 147–150, 151
see also Code of Practice (FMC) ; Standards Framework (FMC)
Family Mediators Association 142
Family Procedure Rules 3–4, 137
Family Solutions Group/Family Solutions Children’s Group 17, 42, 51, 56, 84, 140, 142, 146, 149
family therapy-based models 24
fathers
benefits of CIM 119
child’s preference to live with 52
differences in opinions of CIM between mothers and fathers 49–50
ignoring views of children 64
improved father-child relationships 19, 114
lack of improvement outcomes in communication between parents 122
level playing field for 120–121
satisfaction rates 117
valuing feedback from CIM process 98
fear (parents’) of giving children choices 63, 64, 66–67
fear, children’s 63, 79, 91, 93, 99, 114, 115
feedback 81, 111, 117, 123, 149–150
female mediators 89
Ferguson, L. 146
filtering and reframing painful messages 39, 85, 86, 92–94, 97–99
Final Report of the Voice of the Child Dispute Resolution Advisory Group see Voice of the Child Report
Fineman, M. 7, 8, 10, 14, 130, 151
Flowerdew, J. 90
Fortin, J. 19, 22
Freeman, M. 11, 12, 14, 16, 31, 37, 38, 131, 136, 146, 151
fringe benefits 122–123
funding CIM 56–57, 146
future-focused processes 91–92

G

gatekeeping
parents 13, 54, 62–69, 74, 105
practitioners 57–69, 74, 105
General Comment No. 12 (UNCRC) 13, 14, 74, 76, 107, 126, 129, 131, 149, 150
General Comment No. 14 (UNCRC) 103, 151
Gillick principle 12, 14, 67, 131
Gilmore, S. 42
GPs 55, 56
grandparents 27, 75, 83, 104
grief 36, 88
guaranteed opportunities to be heard 86
Guggenheim, M. 106

H

Hanna, A. 107
Harm Report (MoJ, 2020) 91, 99
Healthy Relationship Transitions (HeaRT) Research Study 16–18, 152–157
Herring, J. 10, 11, 102, 130
Hollingsworth, K. 9, 10, 72, 150
honesty 92–94, 114

I

ignoring views of children 84–85, 90, 99, 108, 112, 116
impartiality 81
impasses 49, 144
improved relationships 38, 86, 94–95, 100, 113–115, 119–120
independent advocates, private versus public law provision of 29
independent voice, CIM as 50
see also neutral third parties
indirect benefits 122–123
individual meetings 79
individualism/personal responsibility ethos 5
‘influence’ 103–126
information needs
age-appropriate information provision 15, 36, 142–143
barriers to access to information and support 51–54
benefits of CIM 35–37, 86–88, 131, 141
listening to children as two-way process 106
non-child-inclusive mediation interventions/support 31
offering CIM 75
ongoing information 86
websites for information 36, 52, 56
invitations to attend CIM 75, 105, 144, 149
see also offering CIM
Ireland 133, 135

J

JUSTICE 5, 17, 20, 57, 67, 140, 146, 147, 148

K

Kaganas, F. 5, 54
Kay-Flowers, S. 48, 72, 79, 88, 90

L

Lake-Carroll, A. 19, 20, 27, 36, 51, 113, 114, 120, 128
Lansdown, G. 14, 30, 37, 48, 51, 106, 107
lasting effects of settlements 111–112, 120
lawyers
as gatekeepers 57–69
lack of awareness about CIM 55
leaflets 75
Lee, N. 11, 40
legal aid 4–5, 19, 58, 146–147
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) 4–5, 19, 57
Legal Services Commission 146
life skills development 118
listening to children 25, 34, 47, 84–85, 86, 106, 124
Long, C. 97, 98, 111, 113, 114, 117, 124, 126
Lundy, L. 15, 25, 28, 42, 54, 74, 76, 80, 105, 107, 108, 112, 116, 125, 126, 134, 135, 145, 150
Lundy’s Model of Child Participation 15–16, 35, 42, 73, 86, 101, 103, 104, 128, 132, 136, 145, 158–159
see also audience ; influence ; space ; voice
Lundy’s Voice Model Checklist for Participation 133, 145, 160–161

M

Maclean, M. 7
male mediators 61, 64
mandatory mediation 67, 136–139
manipulation 34, 83
Mapping Paths to Family Justice (Mapping) 17, 45, 58, 60, 65–66, 72, 75–76, 122, 155
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 7
McIntosh, J. 19, 22, 97, 98, 111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 124, 125, 126, 146
Mediation and Information Assessment Meetings (MIAM) 5, 8, 12, 65, 79, 137, 141, 143
‘Mediation in Mind’ 69
mental health benefits 35, 38, 53, 85, 127, 146
mental health (parents’) 93–94, 104, 115, 121, 123
mental health services 19, 22
Moscati, M. 6, 129
Murch, M. 7–8, 19, 32, 72, 86, 141

N

National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC) 56n1, 140
National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making, 2015–2020, Dublin 133, 161
National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS) 52, 56n1, 140, 142
Neale, B. 27, 51, 90
neoliberalism 4–10
neutral spaces 24
neutral third parties 24, 27, 33, 39, 50, 92–94, 122
non-child-inclusive mediation interventions/support 26–27, 31–32
Norgrove, D. 1, 2
normalizing the offer of CIM 59
see also universality
number of meetings 80

O

objects (versus subjects), children as 3, 21, 23, 128
offering CIM 58, 105, 144, 149–150
see also invitations to attend CIM
one-off or multiple meetings 80
one-to-one sessions 79
ongoing information, need for 86
ongoing support 80, 84
online settings for CIM 77–78
opt-out versus opt-in 68
O’Quigley, A. 36
outcomes of CIM 103–126
benefits of CIM 35, 48–49, 74, 116–121, 139–140
dissatisfaction with outcomes but not the process itself 99–100, 115–116
dissatisfactions with CIM process 124–125
fringe benefits 122–123
owning the outcomes 112–113
satisfaction with 112–115
outlet to process feelings, need for 23–26, 64, 125–126, 127

P

parental alienation 91, 124
parental responsibility 137–138
parental rights, focus on 9, 108–109
parental veto 14
parents
as arbiters of children’s ‘best interests’ 4, 9, 107
‘audience’ 122
capacity, parental 68, 125
children’s views filtered through 45, 72
‘duty’ to listen to children 28
fear of giving children choices 25, 63, 64, 66–67
gatekeeping 13, 54, 62–69, 105
ignoring views of children 84–85, 90, 99, 108, 112, 116
influencing children 33
lack of awareness about CIM 55
mental health 93–94, 104, 115, 121, 123
not listening 84–85
one parent’s reluctance to use CIM 66–67, 75–76
purpose of CIM 48–51
reluctance to use CIM 59
seeing different mediators to children 81
underestimating effects of separation 65
‘voice’ 122
Parkinson, L. 19, 20
Parkinson, P. 26, 27, 83, 90, 105, 106, 109, 116, 117, 118
‘passage agents’ 72–73
paternalism 24, 63, 64–65, 108, 140, 144
peer support 27, 53
physical tension, release of 88–89, 90
policy restraints on use of CIM 68–69
positive framing of CIM to parents 59, 65, 144
power dynamics 7, 100, 145
practitioners
as gatekeepers 57–62
practitioner confidence 57–62
pressure on children 32–33, 82–83
private ordering 6, 8, 137
process of CIM 73–81
Professional Practice Consultants 60–62
progress as purpose of CIM 45, 49, 63, 70
‘proper consideration’ 107–108
protection of children 11, 14, 16, 48, 63–64, 70–71, 91, 99, 101, 106, 110
PSHE (personal, social, health and economic education) 53, 55, 140
psychological benefits of CIM 24–25, 39, 88
see also emotional wellbeing benefits ; mental health benefits
public awareness campaigns 139–140
purpose of CIM 44–54, 132–133, 144

R

rationality 7
reassurance (of child) 37, 88–90, 96–97
reassurance (of parents) 96
Reece, H. 6
reframing painful messages 39, 85, 86, 92–94, 97–99
‘relational family autonomy’ principle 8–10, 23, 35, 70, 101–102, 109, 130–132, 136, 137, 142
relationship education lessons 53, 140
relationship improvement benefits 38, 86, 94–95, 100, 113–115, 119–120
re-litigation 111
reluctance to use CIM 65–66, 70
remote mediation 77–78
reneging on agreements 111–112
research design/methods 16–18, 152–157
resolution of issues 104–105
respect 6, 37–38, 85, 90–91, 97, 101, 109
rights
arbitrary age thresholds 148
cost-benefit analysis 147
lack of children’s automatic 44
legal and procedural changes towards a a children’s rights framework 133–139
making children aware of their 97
parental autonomy versus children’s rights 129–133
parental rights, focus on 9, 108–109
policy restraints on use of CIM 68–69
positive framing of CIM to parents 144
purpose of CIM 47, 49
right not to be heard 33
‘right of audience’ 86
right to be heard 22–43
‘rights v welfare’ debate 11
rights-based constructions of children 106
unawareness of 44, 51
see also article 12 rights ; UNCRC
Rights Idea? 56n1
risks of CIM 32–35, 81–83
Roberts, M. 6, 129
room set-ups 78
Rosie’s Story 56n1
Rudd, B. 111
rural areas 52

S

safety concerns 113, 115
Saini, M. 122–123
satisfaction with CIM 74, 81, 105, 112–115, 116–121
satisfaction with process 85–99
schools 27, 31, 32, 36, 52–54, 77, 140
Scotland 134, 138
section 8 proceedings 12, 136
self-blame 37
self-esteem 106
separate mediators for parents and children 81
setting for mediation 77–78
sibling groups 78–80, 115, 148
Sikveland, R. 59
skill levels of mediators 24, 29, 34, 61, 62, 83, 85, 101, 105, 122, 143–145
Smart, C. 27, 112
Smithson, J. 9, 107, 132
sole practitioners 80
‘space’ to be heard 74–76, 122
Stalford, H. 9, 10, 35, 72, 97, 142, 143, 150
Standards Framework (FMC) 17, 55, 75, 80, 135, 149–150
stigma of separation 53
Stokoe, E. 59
stress, lifting of 88–89, 114
‘subjects,’ children as 3, 21, 23, 70, 71
suitability screening 50, 69–70, 83, 94, 125, 137, 141
suites of support options 32
Supreme Court 134
Symonds, J. 51

T

teachers 32, 53–54, 55, 56, 56n1
therapeutic benefits of CIM 49
see also emotional wellbeing benefits
therapeutic interventions 23, 24, 26–27, 32, 39–40, 41, 86, 89, 96
Tobin, J. 14, 30, 41, 42, 106, 107, 108, 109, 132, 147, 151
Tolich, M. 154
training in CIM
for all professionals 52
mediators’ 13, 20, 24, 45, 60n2, 143–145
update training 13, 17, 20, 45, 58, 61, 70
transitions, minimizing 113

U

UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child)
age and understanding of children 148–149
alternative routes to realizing children’s rights 135–136
‘autonomy’ 8, 9
‘best interests’ 103–104
children’s lack of awareness of 28
children’s rights 13–16, 30, 106
family justice system 10–13
hearing the voice of the child 74
incorporation into UK law 1, 14–16, 128, 131, 133–135, 151
no leeway for discretion 150
parental awareness of 49
ratification of 3–4
see also article 12 rights (UNCRC) ; Lundy’s model
UNICEF 135
universality 29–31, 53, 77, 140–142
unpalatable feedback 39, 65, 85, 92–94, 97–99
see also reframing painful messages
unresolved cases 122–124

V

validation of feelings 89
Varadan, S. 15, 30
verification purposes of CIM 50, 120
‘voice’ 22–43, 101, 107, 122
Voice of the Child Advisory Group 48
Voice of the Child Report 12–13, 60n2, 67, 146
vulnerability 8, 14, 106, 130

W

Wales 134
Walker, J. 19, 20, 27, 36, 51, 113, 114, 120, 128
Wallbank, J. 130
websites for information 36, 52, 56
weight ascribed to children’s views 23, 42–43, 54, 76, 107, 108–110, 131
welfare checklists 12
welfare principle 12, 138–139, 148
welfare purposes of CIM 46–47, 51
wellbeing benefits 19, 22, 35, 51, 85–86, 88–89, 113, 117–118, 127, 144, 146
Wellcome Centre 16–17
whole family support 39–40

Y

Young Person’s Guide to Mediation 142

Z

Zoom 77–78