Child-Focused and Child-Inclusive Mediation: A Comparative Study of Outcomes

Abstract

Children have largely been absent from or on the periphery of mediation processes in postseparation parenting disputes. An accompanying paper (Moloney & McIntosh, 2004) canvasses a number of reasons why this may be the case. Moloney and McIntosh draw a distinction between child-focused and child-inclusive practice, provide a definition of both, and argue that the time is now right for child-focused mediation to become the minimum yardstick by which practice is measured. Child-inclusive practice, on the other hand, more formally fulfils the aspirations of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (and statements from similar bodies) that children should be consulted when decisions about their welfare are being made. Further, child-inclusive practice (as defined in Moloney & McIntosh) allows for consultation without placing the burden of decision making on the child. The present paper describes a current prospective study of outcomes for families utilising these two different forms of mediation: child focused and child inclusive. Over 12 months, the study follows the pathways of individual adjustment and parental alliance for families across the two forms of intervention, addressing whether and in what cases a childinclusive mediation process enhances postseparation family outcomes.