-
Michael J. Tyler
- July 9, 2025
Choosing the Right Mediation Structure in Family Dispute Resolution
By Michael Tyler
Introduction
In family dispute resolution (FDR), once the mediator assesses that the parties are suitable for mediation, the next crucial decision is determining what form the mediation should take. While the facilitative model remains the cornerstone of family mediation, there are several other structures, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Selecting the right model is critical for ensuring safety, communication, and sustainable outcomes.
This blog explores the different structures used in family mediation; face to face, telephone, online, shuttle, and co-mediation, and the key considerations for each.
Face-to-Face Mediation: Direct Dialogue and Engagement
Face-to-face mediation is the traditional and most common approach, where all parties and the mediator are physically present.
Advantages:
- Promotes direct communication and mutual acknowledgment.
- Allows the mediator to observe and address verbal and non-verbal cues.
- Encourages joint decision-making and stronger ownership of outcomes.
- Effective for managing power imbalances and cultural nuances, especially when interpreters are involved.
Disadvantages:
- Heightened emotional intensity can lead to intimidation or escalation.
- Safety concerns, especially during arrival and departure, may limit its appropriateness.
- Geographical separation and time constraints can make this model impractical.
Telephone Mediation: Bridging Distance and Reducing Conflict
Telephone mediation suits cases where geography or safety are issues. There are two variations:
(a) all parties and the mediator are in separate locations, or
(b) one party is co-located with the mediator.
Advantages:
- Enables participation regardless of location.
- Provides emotional distance, lowering conflict and enabling clearer expression.
- Cost-effective and logistically simple.
Disadvantages:
- Confidentiality concerns, including the potential for covert recording.
- Harder to build rapport or interpret silences and vocal tone shifts.
- Slower progress, as visual aids or agendas must be relayed verbally.
Online Mediation: The Evolving Digital Landscape
With tools like Zoom, Teams, and Webex, online mediation has grown rapidly in popularity—especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Advantages:
- Combines the benefits of visual communication with physical distance.
- Allows sharing of documents and agendas in real time.
- Suitable where safety concerns exist but visual cues remain important.
Disadvantages:
- Relies heavily on reliable technology and internet connectivity.
- Raises concerns over the confidentiality and security of online platforms.
- May pose accessibility challenges for those less tech-savvy.
Shuttle Mediation: Prioritising Safety and Emotional Comfort
In shuttle mediation, parties are kept separate, and the mediator moves between them. This can be done in person, by phone, or online.
Advantages:
- Essential where safety concerns exist or a Violence Order prohibits contact.
- Enables parties to speak freely without fear of judgment or intimidation.
- Allows the mediator to challenge positions without appearing biased.
Disadvantages:
- Time consuming; every step must be duplicated for both parties.
- Lack of direct acknowledgment may reduce emotional resolution or buy-in.
- Risk of the mediator becoming a mere messenger rather than a facilitator.
- Confidentiality becomes more complex when conveying emotional context or tone.
Co-Mediation: Shared Expertise and Balance
Co-mediation involves two mediators, often one male and one female, and from different professional backgrounds (e.g., legal and therapeutic).
Advantages:
- Diversity in skills and perspectives enhances problem-solving.
- Helps model appropriate communication, especially in gendered conflicts.
- Supports balance and fairness, particularly where power dynamics exist.
- Beneficial in high-conflict or emotionally charged situations.
Disadvantages:
- Requires strong rapport and preparation between mediators to ensure flow.
- Can confuse parties if mediators are not aligned or appear to disagree.
- Slower process due to the need for more coordination.
- Higher cost, particularly in private practice.
Final Thoughts
There is no one size fits all model in family dispute resolution. The choice of mediation structure must be guided by the specific needs of the parties, the nature of the dispute, and safety considerations. While the facilitative model remains the gold standard, flexibility and informed discretion are key tools for an effective mediator.
As technology and practice evolve, so too will the methods we use to help families find resolution and healing. Whether face to face, over the phone, online, or with co-mediators, the heart of mediation remains the same: empowering parties to make their own decisions in a safe, respectful, and structured environment.
About the Author
Michael Tyler writes on mediation, law, and technology, focusing on practical insights for dispute resolution professionals in Australia and beyond.
