How A Mediator Can Be An Advocate For Your Child
The role of a mediator as an advocate is a controversial one.
There are pros and cons to the issue and each case needs to be evaluated individually.
Some questions need to be asked to decide if a mediator can have a dual role.
First, is it possible for a mediator to be an advocate for the child and continue in a mediation role or will it compromise the mediators ability to be neutral and unbiased? Second, if the mediator acts as an advocate, how does the mediator gather information to establish the best interests of the particular child? The first question needs to be answered before the others.
A mediator can be an advocate under certain circumstances.
Consent must be given to the mediator, but by whom? If the parents want their child's interest represented by someone other than themselves then they need to give their consent.
What if one parent agrees and the other does not? The need arises to address the issue with the non-approving parent.
If the parent continues to be unconvinced, the mediator may have to proceed without the participation or representation of the child.
However, what if the child wants to be represented? Who asserts the child's desire for representation? If the child is of an age where they are able to speak for themselves, they can initiate the process by expressing an interest directly to the mediator.
If the child is younger the parents would need to assert the child's desire to speak with the mediator.
Consent is the key to this issue.
Even if a mediator advertises as an advocate of the child's rights and is employed as such, the parents and/or child need to give written consent to the advocacy.
If a mediator acts as an advocate for the child's best interest, can they maintain their status as a neutral, unbiased third party? On the surface, the answer appears to be "no".
And according to the Rutter Groups' definition of neutrality *(The Rutter Group, 1994, pages 139-140), this cannot be done.
In fact, by representing an interest, a mediator is neither fair nor neutral.
So, how can it be done? Only with great care and caution.
The language that a mediator uses in the mediation session is critical.
What is key here is not only what is said but HOW it is said.
The words' a mediator chooses to communicate the child's perspective needs to be carefully chosen.
The wording of such reporting is crucial, since the parents may feel vulnerable to criticism and rejection by the child.
If, for example, the child has a preference for one parent over the other, the mediator needs to soften the statement and focus upon the positive parts of the relationship.
There is also the possibility that the child has been influenced by one parent by an earlier discussion which the mediator must report, as well.
The last thing the child needs is to have created additional conflict between the parents and themselves.
The mediator must be able to guide the parents in accommodating their children's needs and also be mindful of the parents needs as well.
The mediator may find it necessary to point out the potential damage the parents are doing when they place their needs above those of their child.
The child needs to be shared and not owned.
The child needs to be recognized as an individual in their own right and not a weapon of retaliation.
By using the correct words, the mediator can express the wishes of the child and have them heard by parents who want to share their child's life and not direct them as if in a movie.
If a mediator chooses carefully, the words will be heard as statements of the child's position and not that of the mediators' position.
*The Rutter Group, 1994, pages 139-140
There are pros and cons to the issue and each case needs to be evaluated individually.
Some questions need to be asked to decide if a mediator can have a dual role.
First, is it possible for a mediator to be an advocate for the child and continue in a mediation role or will it compromise the mediators ability to be neutral and unbiased? Second, if the mediator acts as an advocate, how does the mediator gather information to establish the best interests of the particular child? The first question needs to be answered before the others.
A mediator can be an advocate under certain circumstances.
Consent must be given to the mediator, but by whom? If the parents want their child's interest represented by someone other than themselves then they need to give their consent.
What if one parent agrees and the other does not? The need arises to address the issue with the non-approving parent.
If the parent continues to be unconvinced, the mediator may have to proceed without the participation or representation of the child.
However, what if the child wants to be represented? Who asserts the child's desire for representation? If the child is of an age where they are able to speak for themselves, they can initiate the process by expressing an interest directly to the mediator.
If the child is younger the parents would need to assert the child's desire to speak with the mediator.
Consent is the key to this issue.
Even if a mediator advertises as an advocate of the child's rights and is employed as such, the parents and/or child need to give written consent to the advocacy.
If a mediator acts as an advocate for the child's best interest, can they maintain their status as a neutral, unbiased third party? On the surface, the answer appears to be "no".
And according to the Rutter Groups' definition of neutrality *(The Rutter Group, 1994, pages 139-140), this cannot be done.
In fact, by representing an interest, a mediator is neither fair nor neutral.
So, how can it be done? Only with great care and caution.
The language that a mediator uses in the mediation session is critical.
What is key here is not only what is said but HOW it is said.
The words' a mediator chooses to communicate the child's perspective needs to be carefully chosen.
The wording of such reporting is crucial, since the parents may feel vulnerable to criticism and rejection by the child.
If, for example, the child has a preference for one parent over the other, the mediator needs to soften the statement and focus upon the positive parts of the relationship.
There is also the possibility that the child has been influenced by one parent by an earlier discussion which the mediator must report, as well.
The last thing the child needs is to have created additional conflict between the parents and themselves.
The mediator must be able to guide the parents in accommodating their children's needs and also be mindful of the parents needs as well.
The mediator may find it necessary to point out the potential damage the parents are doing when they place their needs above those of their child.
The child needs to be shared and not owned.
The child needs to be recognized as an individual in their own right and not a weapon of retaliation.
By using the correct words, the mediator can express the wishes of the child and have them heard by parents who want to share their child's life and not direct them as if in a movie.
If a mediator chooses carefully, the words will be heard as statements of the child's position and not that of the mediators' position.
*The Rutter Group, 1994, pages 139-140
Source...