Froyd, 2014 FINAL

This article was downloaded by: [Dr Donald “Rick” Froyd]
On: 10 September 2014, At: 06:24
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Child Custody
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjcc20
California Court-Connected Mediation:
Appreciating the Influence of Power and
Processes
Donald Rick Froyd Jr.
a
a
University of Phoenix, Central Valley Campus , Fresno , California
Published online: 10 Sep 2014.
To cite this article: Donald Rick Froyd Jr. (2014) California Court-Connected Mediation: Appreciating
the Influence of Power and Processes, Journal of Child Custody, 11:3, 237-250
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2014.955936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

California Court-Connected Mediation:
Appreciating the Influence of Power
and Processes
DONALD RICK FROYD JR.
University of Phoenix, Central Valley Campus, Fresno, California
In this article, the author discusses the complex relational dynamics
involved with child custody recommending counseling processes in
California court-connected mediation sessions. The mediation
process is viewed through a systemic lens, which allows for the
appreciation of reflexive and recursive elements of power inher-
ently present with all participants. A brief exploration is provided
of how this reflexive use of power by participants influences the
model of mediation used. Finally, suggestions for process improve-
ments are made along with suggestions for areas of future research.
KEYWORDS divorce mediation, family court, child custody, power,
forensic psychology, mediation, family systems, family lifecycle
CHILD CUSTODY RECOMMENDING COUNSELING,
A UNIQUE INITIATIVE
Former intimate partners with children generally use mediation or some form
of alternate dispute resolution format for assistance with sorting out property
and finances from the partnership, along with creating an appropriate
parenting plan for the children (Folberg, Milne, & Salem, 2004). Divorce
mediation was developed as a unique and valuable tool to assist courts with
efficiently processing an ever-increasing caseload with dwindling court
resources (Beck & Sales, 2001a; Froyd, 2011; Milne, Folberg, & Salem, 2004).
There are several models of mediation currently used by mediators across
Address correspondence to Donald Rick Froyd Jr., Ph.D., Central Valley Campus College
Chair, University of Phoenix, 45 East River Park Place West, Suite 101, Mail Stop: CR-K101,
Fresno, CA 93720. E-mail: donald.froyd@phoenix.edu
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at
www.tandfonline.com/wjcc.
Journal of Child Custody, 11:237–250, 2014
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-9418 print=1537-940X online
DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2014.955936
237
Downloadedby[DrDonald“Rick”Froyd]at06:2410September2014

the nation. For a brief overview of the models and history of divorce
mediation, please refer to Froyd and Cain (2014). In that manuscript, Froyd
and Cain included a description of the differences between private,
court-connected, and at-court mediation formats. The authors also discussed
specific ethical concerns and other complex issues inherent within models
that include the mediator recommending parenting plans versus models
in which the content of the mediation session remains confidential (Froyd &
Cain, 2014).
As mediation evolved, hybrid models were developed and employed for
use in the forensic setting (Shienvold, 2004). This expansion of mediation
models subsequently produced a call for more programmatic models that
would facilitate focused scientific investigation to promote evidenced-
influenced practices (Beck & Sales, 2001b; Froyd & Cain, 2014). Folberg
et al. (2004) stated, ‘‘As the practice of mediation has matured, it has been
shaped by the diversity of practitioners who have been drawn to the field
as well as by clients, courts, and the changes that have occurred in the law’’
(p. ix). Folberg et al. (2004) recognized California as being the first
state to implement mandated mediation in child custody disputes, which
dramatically influenced the way the court system processed divorce cases.
In this article, the author uses a systemic lens (Bitter, 2014; Nichols &
Schwartz, 1998) to examine the influence of power and court system
processes on mediation outcomes. The purpose of this article is to assist
mediators with developing an advanced awareness and understanding of
how power and court processes influence the session, and to use this
knowledge to advance their clinical skills. While the author uses experiences
with California courts, specific theoretical and clinical application can be
applied beyond that state.
Recommending and Non-Recommending Mediation in California
Two prominent contexts for child custody mediation exist in the United States:
(a) the context in which the counselor makes parenting plan recommenda-
tions directly to the judicial officer immediately following the mediation
session; and (b) the context in which the mediator provides no information
to the judicial officers after the mediation session, except recommendations
for a restraining order or initiating a mandated child abuse report. For a review
of California’s legislation regarding these contexts, please see the California
Codes (n.d.). There has been considerable controversy in the field regarding
mediators making recommendations to the court after a mediation session
(Kelly, 2004). Froyd and Cain (2014) discussed the ethical issues involved in
models that make recommendations to the court in terms of role confusion
and multiple relationships for the mediator. In this article, the primary
focus is how power differentials associated with participant positions are
influenced in the recommending model.
238 D. R. Froyd Jr.

What Is a Satisfactory or Successful Mediation?
To facilitate an examination of how power and court processes in California
influence the mediation sessions, it seems useful to situate these elements
in the context of a satisfactory or successful mediation. A search of the
EBSCOhost database (Academic Search Complete; SocINDEX; Education
Source) was conducted using the terms successful, divorce, and mediation.
To ensure currency of the research, the time frame was limited to the
previous six years (2006–2012), and only peer-reviewed articles were
obtained which produced five articles relevant to this discussion (Ballard,
Holtzworth-Munroe, Applegate, & D’Onofrio, 2011; Lowenstein, 2009;
Olekalns, Brett, & Donohue, 2010; Peeples, Reynolds, & Harris, 2008; Terch,
2012). Terch suggested several elements make up a successful mediation
such as, a settlement, clarity for both parties of the other’s position with regard
to the conflict, and having a confidential venue in which to discuss real
issues and resolve the case before trial. Peeples et al. conducted an empirical
study of mediation cases from a local court in North Carolina that produced
confusing results for the researchers in terms of measuring successful
mediation outcomes. Those researchers ultimately focused on whether
the parties reached an agreement using mediation, lawyer-negotiated settle-
ments, or resolutions by the court. In a discussion of their statistical analyses,
Peeples et al. also included length of the agreement as a marker of a successful
mediation. Olekalns et al. analyzed linguistic cues as predictors of settlement
in divorce mediation, thereby assuming a successful mediation resulted
in an agreement. Lowenstein reviewed research from 2002–2007 and
stated that the objective of mediation was to ‘‘create harmony where there
is disharmony’’ (p. 233). As such, Lowenstein appears to assume a successful
or satisfactory mediation created harmony.
To date, there remains a lack of empirical validation of the efficacy of any
model of mediation in the scientific literature (Kelly, 2004). Some researchers
indicate a reason for this is the nonexistence of clearly articulated factors
that define a successful mediation session (Ballard et al., 2011). This lack of
a universal set of factors defining a ‘‘successful mediation’’ can contribute to
an exploitation of consumers of mediation (e.g., coparents, judicial officers,
and attorneys) in terms of role confusion by professionals and consumers,
as well as effectively balancing power in the context of the roles and settings.
Clinical experience, as well as research reveals that a definition of a successful
mediation is largely predicated upon the particular judge’s philosophy hear-
ing the case (Froyd, 2011). For example, some judicial officers are settlement
oriented with a priority on the mediator producing a stipulated agreement
with less emphasis on human relationship dynamics. Other judicial officers
are focused upon family relational dynamics in terms of gender issues or
violence issues. Still, other judicial officers set the child’s best interests
at the forefront of the desired mediation outcome. This variability can cause
California Court-Connected Mediation 239

confusion for researchers interested in studying the effectiveness of mandated
government programs, such as child custody mediation.
Clinical experience with many judicial officers reveals that many of
those individuals are earnestly invested in performing their judicial
responsibilities with intelligence, compassion, fairness, and integrity within
the confines of their sworn duties. However, the same clinical experience
also reveals that there exists a reality that the judicial philosophy carries
great weight in the decision making process of the mediators with respect
to the parenting plan. Future research regarding how judicial officer
philosophies influence parenting plan recommendations would be useful
in providing a more holistic understanding of the efficacy of family court
mediation.
Lastly, no studies produced from a search of the literature between 2006
and 2012 focused upon the perspective of the litigants with respect to what
they would term a successful mediation. This is noteworthy. The articles on
mediation assume the litigants have no knowledge of mediation and must
be educated about the processes to achieve an agreement (e.g., Stahl, n.d.;
Terch, 2012). This is presumably because the parents are considered to be
in an emotional crisis and seeking assistance from ‘‘experts’’ (e.g., mediators,
attorneys, child custody evaluators, etc.). Based upon the absence of scholarly
attention in this area, mediation participant expectations, prior to the session,
may be an important area for future study to assist with identifying factors
associated with a successful mediation.
POWER IN MEDIATION
Kelly (1995) offered a definition of power in the mediation context,
‘‘ . . . power can be defined as the ability of a person in a relationship to influ-
ence or modify an outcome’’ (p. 87). Reflecting back on 10 years as an
at-court mediator for a California Family Court, clinical experience reveals
that the power associated with a specific position in the process of mediation
increases or decreases with the power inherent in that position. For example,
a judicial officer carries the position power of having the ability to make
a binding legal ruling in the case. A consequence of judicial position power
is when a bench officer favors settlements, it is possible the mediator will feel
compelled to produce a settlement, as opposed to allowing the session to
unfold without judicial influence. Even if that means ignoring evidence of
previously unreported domestic violence verbalized by the victim in the
present session. Similarly, clinical experience reveals that the mediator
assumes this intrinsic power associated with the mediator position. Clinical
experience also suggests that a mediator preferring a shared custody parent-
ing plan template may align with the likeminded coparent over the parent
that prefers a different type of plan.
240 D. R. Froyd Jr.

Researchers and practitioners such as Gewurz (2001) and Kelly (1995)
have provided thorough and enlightening eruditions of the types and ways
in which power imbalances present in different contexts, especially alternate
dispute resolution formats. The unique focus in this article is on power
in terms of how systemic factors influence the mediation session. Mediators
and child custody counselors should have a sophisticated academic and
clinical knowledge of the many roles or types of power there are in social
and relational contexts, as well as a systemic understanding (Bitter, 2014;
Nichols & Schwartz, 1998) of how power influences the mediation session
(Gewurz; Kelly, 1995).
Power as a Factor Influencing At-Court Mediation a Systemic View
The issue of power is running in the background of every relationship in
social contexts, especially in mediation sessions (Kelly, 1995). In terms of
how power is present during the beginning of the session, it may be an
expected and somewhat normal survival mechanism for the parents to want
to hold on to any perceived power they can to avoid a sense of increasing loss
(e.g., family system, property, financial assets, etc.). In these cases, a systemic
lens (Ahrons, 1999; Bitter, 2014; Nichols & Schwarts, 1998) is useful for under-
standing the family lifecycle in the context of separation, divorce, and the
creation of blended or ‘‘binuclear’’ families (Ahrons). A deeper systemic view
suggests that each parent attending at-court mediation presents to the session
as an individual. However, these individuals do not exist in a vacuum. Rather,
each coparent is situated in the context of his or her interpersonal relation-
ships consisting of his or her nuclear families and families of origin (Bitter,
2014; Nichols & Schwarts). As well, each coparent attends the session with
the immediate and enduring influence of his or her socio-economic status
in terms of his or her ability to afford everyday living expenses such as food,
shelter, and clothing. These coparents are affected by the community in terms
of risk of violent crime and availability of various resources such as healthcare
and educational opportunities. All of these elements are systemic factors
immediately present in varying degrees of intensity with each coparent as
he or she participates in the mediation session. Other systemic factors can
be identified, however, to do so would be beyond the scope of this article.
Orientation Influencing Power
In cases where the coparents attempt to engage in the negotiations using
a specific set of principles or parameters (see Stahl, n.d.), the possibility
of power overtaking or hindering the negotiations can be limited and the
possibility for agreement, subsequently, enhanced. However, many litigants
arrive for court with only a cursory exposure to preparing for mediation.
Clinical experience suggests the coparents are in a time of significant stress

from the breakup of the relationship and family. A prominent family scholar
wrote:
Unlike other transitions that occur more or less on predictable
chronological timetables, divorce can occur at any time during the family
life cycle. Unlike expected transitions in the life cycle, divorce has a
greater potential to cause disequilibrium that can result in debilitating
crises. (Ahrons, 1999, p. 384)
Many family courts offer online or in-person informational orientations
to the mediation process. However, court administrators and staff are encour-
aged to remember Ahron’s insightful and compassionate articulation of the
potential effect of divorce on the family members. As such, an online or brief,
in-person workshop on preparing for mediation might simply add to some
family members’ overwhelming stress. Oftentimes an empathetic and gentle
explanation of the process by the mediator at the beginning of the session
can minimize the feelings of being overwhelmed with information during
such a family crisis.
California Processes Influencing Power Differentials
THE MORNING CALENDAR
After reviewing the influence of systemic factors immediately influencing
coparents in varying degrees of intensity, it seems important to consider some
court processes that may negatively affect the power differentials in the
mediation session. Some California courts use a method referred to as the
morning calendar to process family law cases requiring mandated mediation.
The morning calendar method directs all litigants on the docket for the period
from 8:00 a.m. until lunchtime to assemble for a brief roll call and orientation
to mediation in the court. After the orientation, the litigants move to the family
court mediation spaces to await negotiations on a first come, first served basis.
For cases with relatively low levels of conflict, this is an efficient and swift pro-
cessing method. However, clinical experience suggests many cases set for the
morning calendar are recurrent, high conflict cases involving complex issues,
such as child sexual abuse and domestic violence allegations.
The systemic factors mentioned previously (e.g., possible economic
issues, healthcare access, community concerns) combined with complex
factors such as child sexual abuse or domestic violence, makes a morning
calendar type of initial interface with the court seem cold and insensitive at
best, and even abusive in some cases (Froyd, 2011). For instance, coparents
experiencing difficulty with access to healthcare during a stressful lifecycle
transition such, as divorce or termination of an intimate partnership, who live
in a high crime area, are understandably experiencing myriad feeling states
associated with these circumstances. The morning calendar with its ‘‘herding
242 D. R. Froyd Jr.

cattle to the slaughter’’ approach only serves to exacerbate the negative
feelings associated with any of the identified systemic factors associated with
separation and termination of an intimate partnership. Clinical experience
reveals that oftentimes coparents were emotionally drained by the discomfort
of being herded along with the other angry coparents from the court spaces to
the mediation spaces before they even entered into the mediation session. As
such, these emotionally drained coparents were more focused on reacting
to interactions with the other coparent—using power reflexively for self-
protection. This reflexive use of power will be discussed more thoroughly
in the following section.
HIGH CONFLICT CASES AND THE MORNING CALENDAR
Researchers studying reasons for disputes in high conflict cases found no firm
definition of the construct ‘‘high conflict’’ in the social sciences literature
(Cashmore & Parkinson, 2011). Those scholars suggested that recurrent high
conflict coparents were less likely to be represented by counsel; therefore,
they subsequently consumed an inordinate amount of the court’s time, poss-
ibly inhibiting access to justice for other cases (Cashmore & Parkinson,
pp. 186–187). Additionally, high conflict cases are less likely to settle upon
a stipulated agreement based upon several factors that include: (a) parenting
capacity and safety concerns; and (b) child abuse and neglect allegations
among other factors (Cashmore & Parkinson). Protective parents seeking
assistance from the court to protect a child from an abusive or neglectful
parent will use reflexive power to ward off any attempts by the mediator or
other parent to create a parenting plan that will place the child in danger.
As such, recurrent high conflict cases are inappropriate for the morning calen-
dar format based upon the need to ensure adequate safety screening, as well
as a significantly reduced likelihood for a stipulated agreement from one brief
mediation session.
A Systems Appreciation of Power in Mediation
Dupuis (2010) suggested that one must be familiar with several assumptions
when applying systems theory as a lens through which to understand the
complex relational interactions in the family system. For instance, there is
the assumption that elements of the system are interconnected (Gately, Pike,
& Murphy, 2006). What affects an individual member of the system affects the
system as a whole (Dupuis; Gately et al.). Moreover, the system interacts with
its environment (Rosenberg & Guttman, 2001). Recursively, the environment
interacts with the system (Dupuis). The system must be viewed as a whole to
be distinguishable from its setting (Dupuis; Rosenberg & Guttman). Finally,
the system is viewed as a metaphor, not as a real entity (Dupuis).

Viewing the separating family as a system attempting to achieve second
order change (i.e., enduring) with a concomitant major change in the homeo-
static balance (Bitter, 2014), the mediator must understand the complex
nature of how the elements recursively influence each other during the
mediation session. During the court mandated mediation session, each
participant assumes a role in which inherent power exists. As such, each of
these participants in the litigation process seeks to advance their agenda
requisite to that quotient, or, in spite of that assigned measure of power. Some
scholars suggest that mediation is a place in which power is balanced effec-
tively outside of the adversarial process of the court, for example, in mediation
(Gewurz, 2001; Kelly, 1995). Yet, clinical experience in California at-court
mediation with high conflict cases suggests that in at-court mediation, power
is significantly present throughout the mediation and adversarial processes,
specifically influenced by the mediator making parenting plan recommenda-
tions at the end of the session.
Oftentimes, high conflict participants are problem-focused and have
been informed and coached by their attorney to attempt to influence the
mediator (called a child custody recommending counselor in California
recommending counties) during the session. This attempt to influence the
mediator is because he or she will be making the parenting plan recommen-
dation directly to the court at the end of the session. Adding to this dynamic,
clinical experience, along with comments from several family law attorneys,
reveals that certain judicial officers routinely make the counselor’s recommen-
dation the order of the court after a brief hearing. A graphic representation of
the power quotients and their influence on the mediation session is presented
in Figure 1.
Tasking the child custody recommending counselor (mediator) with
making recommendations directly to the judicial officer at the end of the
mediation session inevitably influences the power differentials in the session
between each of the participants. Figure 1 graphically represents a linear
FIGURE 1 Power influencing factors in recommending counseling session: Linear.
244 D. R. Froyd Jr.

approach to tracking the power differentials in mediation. The thickness of
the line represents the level of power for each entity. As such, the power of
the judge is the most potent and influences the litigants and mediator signifi-
cantly. The power of the mediator influences the litigants, and perhaps to
a lesser degree, influences the judicial officer’s recommendations. Represent-
ing counsel oftentimes exercise power in the way they coach their particular
client to participate in the mediation session. While each of the power lines
noted in Figure 1 have discrete linkage to one entity; systemically, each power
quotient produces additional influence in the form of reactions from the other
entities. Systems theorists refer to this dynamic as circular causality (Bitter,
2014; Nichols & Schwarts, 1998). Unless the mediator is skilled at identifying
the power influence of each entity and takes steps to manage the flow, the
most powerful entity will end up assuming total control.
Figure 2 demonstrates a systemic view (Bitter, 2014; Nichols & Schwartz,
1998) of the reflexive and recursive flow of the power dynamics in a mediation
session. While appearing somewhat confusing, the graphical representation
of the reflexive and recursive flow of power (influence) between participants
in the mediation session moves unpredictably. Power influence flows
according to the individual characteristics of each participant, the material
being discussed, and the latent influence of the systemic factors identified
earlier (healthcare access issues, socioeconomic issues, relational issues,
etc.). The ebb and flow of the power energy moves through each participant
according to the principle of circular causality (Bateson, 1979 as cited
in Nichols & Schwartz).
Power’s Influence on the Model of Mediation Used
Highly conflicted coparents tend to remain problem-focused and=or self-
focused as opposed to being open-minded and agreeable to exploring
a variety of possibilities for the parenting plan. These anecdotal findings are
FIGURE 2 Power influencing factors in recommending counseling session: Systemic.

congruent with recent research (Cashmore & Parkinson, 2011). Clinical
experience reveals there are at least three factors that tend to keep mediation
participants problem focused as opposed to solution focused: (a) expectation
that the mediator would be submitting a parenting plan recommendation
immediately after the session; (b) understanding that unless a stipulated
agreement was reached, an adversarial process would be taking place
immediately after the session with the judge issuing a final ruling; and (c)
representing counsel coaching parents to accept only a specific percentage
of parenting time in order to estimate or achieve child support payment
expectations.
Froyd and Cain (2014) offered a humanistic model of mediation in which
the litigants are encouraged to saturate the initial part of the session with their
wants, needs, and desires regarding the parenting plan (pp. 56–57). The pro-
cess is designed to flow and have an overarching non-judgmental approach as
the litigants listed their needs. However, with highly conflicted litigants, the
expectation of the mediator producing recommendations to the judge after
the session can corrupt this step in the process. Litigants, or their advising
counsel, may use the factor of the mediator parenting plan recommendation
(position power) as a tool to apply personal power in the form of blocking. In
other words, they only articulate their own proposal for the plan and refuse to
keep an open mind or willingness to explore potential parenting plan possi-
bilities in the session. They use the entire session to apply their own logic and
reasoning for their proposal to influence the mediator’s recommendations.
This application of personal power prevents the litigants from using the useful
(and common sense) tips suggested by Stahl (n.d.) to increase their chances of
having a positive and productive mediation session. This refusal to negotiate
in California recommending counties creates a hybrid model of mediation,
which is similar to arbitration.
Power and the Birth of Recommending Mediation: Pseudo
Arbitration?
One answer to the dilemma of the misapplication, misuse, or strategic use of
power in meditation is to assign the mediator the task of making recommen-
dations for the issues being negotiated. Shienvold (2004) discussed the
development of hybrid models of mediation in terms of practicality and
utility. Recommending mediation is a hybrid model that combines the basic
approach of mediation along with the task of making recommendations at
the end of the session. Milne et al. (2004) indicated mediation is not therapy,
negotiation, or arbitration. However, the mediator making parenting plan
recommendations directly to the judge at the end of the session seems very
similar to the process of arbitration.
A legal source defines arbitration as an alternate dispute resolution for-
mat in which the session takes place outside of the court by a pre-selected
246 D. R. Froyd Jr.

impartial third party. After hearing the testimony and evidence of the
participants, the arbitrator makes a decision. The parties agree to accept the
arbitrator’s decision and the decision is legally binding (Arbitration, n.d.).
Accordingly, in recommending counties where the judicial officer hearing
the case routinely makes the mediator created recommendations the order
of the court, despite post session testimony, the process seems to mirror arbi-
tration: pseudo-arbitration. There is an additional problem in recommending
counties in California. The parents are mandated to attend mediation. This
violates the process of arbitration if one or both participants do not wish to
attend. In cases where one or both parents do not wish to attend mediation
and the court routinely makes mediator recommendations the order of the
court, these parents are exploited by the system by essentially mandating
them to pseudo-arbitration. As such, parents should have the right to decline
participation in mediation as a whole.
SUGGESTIONS FOR BALANCING POWER FOR
AT-COURT MEDIATION
One issue causing a negative influence on power differentials with mandated
child custody mediation is the morning calendar mentioned previously.
Unless the mediators adhere to a consistent time allotment for the mediation
session (e.g., 50 minutes), the waiting litigants simply sit in an uncomfortable
environment staring at the opposing party(s), sometimes for hours. Creating
appointments for mandatory at-court child custody mediation sessions might
provide structure to the time for all of the participants and alleviates the
‘‘rushed’’ feeling sometimes associated with mediation outcome research
(Kelly, 2004). All cases should be prescreened for indications of family
violence and child abuse days or weeks before attempting mediation.
Those cases should be processed using a separate track that includes safety
precautions to protect the victims. As discussed previously, these factors are
associated with influencing power either reflexively or recursively.
Another issue is when one party feels uncomfortable meeting together
for the session. This discomfort may also make the litigant feel intimidated
or pressured. Some outcome research suggested litigants might feel too inti-
midated to participate fully in the mediation session based upon discomfort
level (Kelly, 2004). Mediation has a technique designed to address this issue
referred to as ‘‘caucusing.’’ Caucusing allows the mediator to shuttle back
and forth to facilitate the negotiations in which the litigants are in separate
spaces (Milne et al., 2004). Clinical experience reveals that oftentimes media-
tors exert their own power by insisting that the litigants meet together despite
a desire to meet separately. This is another subtle power issue that influences
the mediation. However, allowing a nervous or shy litigant the opportunity
to meet with the mediator separately at first might lead to a reduction in

discomfort and a decision to meet together once they have been able to speak
with the mediator alone.
Unless there is a triage system in place where uncomplicated cases can
participate in a ‘‘fast pass’’ type of mediation session, each case should have
the opportunity to have additional sessions to: (a) continue an initial session;
(b) follow up on a test of an element in a plan; or (c) appreciate the nature of
the coparenting relationships, as well as the children’s adaptation to the plan.
Judicial officers, family court administrators, and mediators should limit
communication between each other about cases prior to the mediation ses-
sion except for emergency issues such as, family violence or child abuse.
This limited contact about cases should result in minimizing mediator bias,
resulting in less chance of the mediator misusing power in the session. Super-
vision of the movement of the cases through the court docket should be
solely for judicial officers and family court administrators. The need to rush
through a calendar or accept more cases during a morning calendar may
cause the mediator to misuse power and pressure the coparents to accept
a deal prematurely or rush the closing of the session.
SUGGESTED AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
More research is necessary on what factors comprise a ‘‘successful mediation.’’
Additionally, researchers should understand how the influence of judicial offi-
cer philosophy affects the parenting plan recommendation of the mediator.
Remarkably, coparent input regarding factors they consider associated with
a successful mediation has not been studied. This seems to be an important
area that needs to be identified and introduced into the literature.
REFERENCES
Ahrons, C. R. (1999). Divorce: An unscheduled family transition. In E. A. Carter, & M.
McGoldrick (Eds.), The expanded family lifecycle: Individual, family, and
social perspectives (pp. 381–398). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Arbitration (n.d.). Retrieved from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/
arbitration
Ballard, R. H., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A. E., & D’Onofrio, B. D. (2011).
Factors affecting the outcome of divorce and paternity mediations. Family Court
Review, 49(1), 10–33.
Beck, C. J. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001a). Decreased divorce processing costs. In C. A.
Beck and B. D. Sales (Eds.), Family mediation: Facts, myths, and future prospects
(pp. 99–121). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037=10401-008
Beck, C. J. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001b). Future mediation research. In C. A. Beck and
B. D. Sales (Eds.), Family mediation: Facts, myths, and future prospects
(pp. 125–166). American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037=10401-009
248 D. R. Froyd Jr.

Bitter, J. R. (2014). Theory and practice of family therapy and counseling (2nd ed).
Belmont, CA: Brooks=Cole.
California Codes. (n.d.). Family Code x 3183. Retrieved from http://leginfo.
legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&section
Num=3183.
California Codes. (n.d.). Family Code x 1814. Retrieved from http://leginfo.
legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&division=5.&
title=&part=1.&chapter=2.&article=
Cashmore, J. A., & Parkinson, P. N. (2011). Reasons for disputes in high conflict
families. Journal of Family Studies, 17(3), 186–203.
Dupuis, S. (2010). Examining the blended family: The application of systems theory
toward an understanding of the blended family system. Journal of Couple &
Relationship Therapy, 9(3), 239–251. doi:10.1080=15332691.2010.491784
Folberg, J., Milne, A. L., & Salem, P. (Eds.). (2004). Divorce and family mediation:
Models, techniques, and applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Froyd, D. R. (2011). Retaliatory violence after family court: Victim safety after family
court litigation in intimate partner violence cases. (Walden University).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 382. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/895977876?accountid=35812. (895977876).
Froyd, D. R., & Cain, D. J. (2014). Toward a humanistic approach to child custody
mediation: A delicate balance. Journal of Child Custody, 11(1), 41–60.
Gately, N. J., Pike, L. T., & Murphy, P. T. (2006). An exploration of the impact of
the family court process on ‘‘invisible’’ stepparents. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage, 44(3=4), 31–52. doi:10.1300=J087v44n03_03
Gewurz, I. G. (2001). (Re)Designing mediation to address the nuances of power
imbalance. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19(2), 135–162.
Kelly, J. B. (1995). Power imbalance in divorce and interpersonal mediation:
Assessment and intervention. Mediation Quarterly, (13)2, 85–98.
Kelly, J. B. (2004). Family mediation research: Is there empirical support for the field?
Conflict Resolution Quarterly, (22)1–2, 3–35.
Lowenstein, L. F. (2009). Mediation with separated parents: Recent research:
2002–2007. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50(4), 233–247.
Milne, A. L., Folberg, J., & Salem, P. (2004). The evolution of divorce and family
mediation: An overview. In J. Folberg, A. L. Milne, & P. Salem (Eds.), Divorce
and family mediation: Models, techniques, and applications (pp. 3–25). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Nichols, M. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (1998). Family therapy: Concepts and methods.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Olekalns, M., Brett, J., & Donohue, W. (2010). Words are all I have: Linguistic cues
as predictors of settlement in divorce mediation. Negotiation & Conflict
Management Research, 3(2), 145–168.
Peeples, R. A., Reynolds, S., & Harris, C. T. (2008). It’s the conflict, stupid:
An empirical study of factors that inhibit successful mediation in high-conflict
custody cases. Wake Forest Law Review, 43(2), 505–531.
Rosenberg, M., & Guttmann, J. (2001). Structural boundaries of single-parent families
and children’s adjustment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 36(1=2), 83–98.
doi: 10.1300=J087v36n01_05

Shienvold, A. (2004). Hybrid processes. In J. Folberg, A. L. Milne, & P. Salem
(Eds.), Divorce and family mediation: Models, techniques, and applications
(pp. 112–126). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Stahl, P. (n.d.). Tips to prepare for child custody mediation. Retrieved from http://
parentingafterdivorce.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Tips-to-Prepare-for-
Child-Custody-Mediation.pdf
Terch, J. L. (2012). Divorce mediation: The importance of client preparation.
Bench & Bar of Minnesota, 69(2), 20–21.
250 D. R. Froyd Jr.

Froyd, 2014 FINAL

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Froyd, 2014 FINAL

Froyd, 2014 FINAL