Notes on Mediation Practice: Resolution Institute Model and Case Study (Amina, Noah; Leila & Marcus)

Context and Case Overview

This transcript is a teaching session on mediation, applied to a family law scenario involving Leila and Marcus and their children, Amina and Noah. Marcus has initiated a mediation process because of ongoing conflict around parenting arrangements. Leila has primary care of the children, who are aged roughly eight and eleven, with Marcus typically having the children every second weekend and one day during the week. The session uses this real‑world style case to practice the Resolution Institute’s mediation model, exploring how to analyze the situation step by step and how to structure the conversation to help the parents reach a parenting plan. Throughout the discussion, the instructor emphasizes that the aim of mediation is to enable the parties to communicate, identify needs, and co‑create solutions rather than have a mediator impose a decision.

Mediation Models and Framework

The class notes that prior lectures covered several mediation models (including an “egg” model). In this tutorial, they adopt the Resolution Institute’s mediation model and analyze the Leila–Marcus case through its steps. The group discusses two options for proceeding: either the facilitator leads the session step by step, or students can volunteer to act as the mediator and role‑play the parties. A recurring theme is that mediation exists to help disputing parties develop their own resolution rather than providing an external solution. The instructor reinforces the guiding principle of “do no further harm” and the idea that mediation should safeguard the emotional safety of any children involved. The conversation also highlights the possibility of using shuttle mediation or separate rooms if safety or comfort requires it, with the mediator retaining discretion about rooming arrangements as the process unfolds.

EAR Statements (Empathy, Attention, Respect) and Their Use

A central technique discussed is EAR statements from Bill Eddy’s High Conflict Institute. When a party speaks, the mediator uses empathy, attention, and respect to acknowledge and validate what is being said. Empathy is about recognizing the speaker’s feelings (e.g., “I can understand how frustrating this can be”); attention involves encouraging the speaker to share more (e.g., “Tell me more about that”); and respect means showing nonjudgmental appreciation for the speaker’s perspective or relationship (e.g., “I respect your relationship with your daughter”). The notes stress that empathy is not the same as validating the problem in a judgmental way; it is about making the other party feel heard and supported in the process.

Intake Sessions and Safety Considerations

Before delving into the parenting issues, the mediator conducts intake sessions with the initiating party (party A) and then with the other party (party B). In this case, Marcus initiates mediation (party A). The intake includes background on the relationship, its duration, what life looked like when the couple were together, and safety screening to determine whether mediation is safe and appropriate. The intake also covers the children’s developmental status, needs, and current arrangements, plus any safety or welfare concerns about the other household. A key logistical point is how the mediator communicates with the other party—often starting with a text message to notify them that a call will occur—so the recipient isn’t blindsided during their workday.

The mediator explains confidentiality around the intake information: Marcus’s disclosures are not shared with Leila beyond what is necessary to proceed with mediation. If the safety screening raises concerns, the DBSAT (Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool) screening may be used if there is a history or indicator of family violence within the last twelve months; based on findings, additional supports or protections may be implemented to ensure safety. The mediator also notes that sometimes the transmission and coordination of information involve practical decisions (e.g., whether to conduct intake by phone, Zoom, or in person) and that the mediator can adapt to locations or remote settings.

If safety concerns arise, the mediator may decide to separate the parties (through shuttle or private sessions) to maintain progress without compromising safety or progress. The facilitator emphasizes that progress toward a parenting plan should continue only if it is safe and appropriate for all involved.

Opening Statements, Reflections, and Agenda Setting

After intake, the mediation proceeds to opening statements. Typically, the party who initiated the mediation (Marcus) states what brings him to mediation and what he hopes to achieve (e.g., more time with the kids, greater involvement in education, and a written plan). In this case, Marcus emphasizes the children’s time between homes (ages $8$ and $11$) and his desire to increase his time with them and to participate in key decisions about their education, while also expressing concerns about being kept out of certain educational choices. The other party (Leila) then offers her opening, focusing on stability and safeguarding routines, arguing that the current scheduling works and expressing concerns about communication, medical decisions, and the need for a clear plan. The mediator then uses EAR statements to reflect back neutrally, reframing statements in child‑focused terms (e.g., “We’re here for the children,” and “We’d like to talk about how the kids’ time is shared and how decisions are made across households”).

Following opening statements, the mediator moves to agenda setting. The aim is to identify common ground and concrete topics to cover, while also listing items that need discussion. The facilitator captures agenda items in a shared space (whiteboard or chat) and ensures that topics remain neutrally phrased to avoid escalating tension. Common ground identified in this tutorial includes topics like time spent with each parent, and communication about the children. Additional topics surface during discussion, such as medical decisions, extracurricular activities, schooling decisions, third‑party involvement (grandparents, new partners), and differences in parenting styles or discipline approaches. Importantly, the mediator clarifies that this is a parenting mediation (not a financial mediation) and that financial matters will be handled separately if they arise.

Agenda Items, Common Ground, and Handling Diverse Topics

The mediator works to surface and frame agenda items in neutral terms to prevent personal attacks or blame. Examples of agenda items discussed include: where the children spend time each week (and during school holidays), how decisions are made about the children across households, and a written parenting plan that coordinates routines and responsibilities. The discussion also encompasses safety and health communications (e.g., how medical information is shared), extracurricular activities, school decisions (including potential moves to different schools), and the involvement of third parties (such as extended family or new partners). The mediator notes that some items may be more contentious (e.g., relocation, or significant differences in parenting styles such as discipline or screen time). The participants are reminded that issues related to money belong in separate financial mediation, and that this session focuses on the children’s welfare and future arrangements. The use of a whiteboard or live chat to track agenda items helps keep both parties aligned on what will be discussed and what outcomes are desired.

Mediation Logistics: Room Arrangements, Shuttle, and Safety

A practical emphasis in the session is the logistics of how the mediation will run. The mediator explains that in some cases, the parties may remain in the same room; in others, it may be necessary to use shuttle mediation (moving between rooms) or private sessions to maintain safety and encourage candid discussion. The decision to separate is at the mediator’s discretion and may be informed by ongoing safety considerations (e.g., DBSAT results, recent incidents, or observed hostility). The emphasis is on enabling constructive dialogue for the children’s benefit while preserving safety and minimizing harm. The facilitator reiterates that if the relationship is too strained to proceed safely in the same room, private sessions and shuttle talk will be used, and a written plan for the children can still be developed.

Private Coaching, Joint Sessions, and Outcome Development

As past issues and grievances are aired, the mediator engages in private coaching with each party to help them formulate proposals and think through what a parenting plan could look like. After private sessions, the mediator reconvenes in a joint session to present, discuss, and negotiate proposals. The goal is to reach a binding parenting plan that both parents can sign and that provides a clear, week‑by‑week structure for the children’s time, along with a mechanism for future adjustments without returning to court. In the described scenario, this often culminates in drafting a written parenting agreement during the session and providing each parent with a signed copy to take home. The typical mediation day can extend to several hours (the session described runs for around $3$ to $4$ hours), underscoring the depth and complexity of family mediation.

Child‑Inclusive Mediation and Ethical Considerations

The discussion briefly touches on child‑inclusive mediation, a process in which a trained child consultant talks with the children (with appropriate safeguards) to gather their views about living in two homes, what works well, and what could be improved. The consultant then reports back to the mediator to inform the parents’ decisions. The notes emphasize that this approach requires careful judgment: it is valuable when it can be conducted safely and ethically, but it should not endanger or overly influence a child, and it should not be used to pressure a child to express a preferred outcome. The mediator notes that if a parent suspects coaching or manipulation, the process should be carefully evaluated and may be avoided.

Gender, Culture, and Mediator Self‑Care

The session discusses the role of gender dynamics in mediation. Participants consider whether male and female mediators bring different approaches or effectiveness in various cultural contexts, and whether co‑mediators from different genders can help balance power dynamics and enhance perceived fairness for both parents. The conversation acknowledges that co‑mediated sessions can be beneficial in situations where cultural norms or family dynamics might make one gender feel less heard, and that mediators should adapt to the families’ needs without compromising neutrality. In addition, the discussion covers mediator self‑care and the importance of staying focused and emotionally balanced. Techniques such as “putting on a uniform” (a professional role) or using private debriefing with a supervisor are discussed as ways to maintain focus, manage emotions, and avoid being overwhelmed by heartbreaking or highly charged topics. The group notes that while emotions may be intense, the mediator’s task is to facilitate communication and help the parties reach a practical plan for their children.

Challenges, Realities, and When to Pause or End Mediation

The participants acknowledge that some topics (for example, relocation or deeply entrenched relationship issues) can be extremely challenging and may threaten the viability of continuing mediation in one session. If the parties are not ready to proceed safely or if one party still clings to the hope of reconciliation, private sessions or even pausing and scheduling a subsequent session may be appropriate. The mediator’s responsibility is to assess whether it is safe and productive to continue and to protect the children’s welfare. The discussion also recognizes that mediation is a skill that can be learned and that professional training—in Australia, a certificate in Family Dispute Resolution—helps mediators develop the capability to stay impartial, manage emotions, and guide conversations effectively. The session closes with reflections on the intensity of real‑world mediation, the importance of focus, and the value of ongoing practice and supervision.

Final Reflections and Next Steps

Towards the end, the group invites further reflection via an online forum and teases additional content for upcoming lectures (e.g., child‑inclusive mediation as a potential topic). They reiterate that the ultimate aim of parenting mediation is to produce a workable plan that prioritizes the children’s safety, stability, and well‑being, while equipping parents with a mechanism to adjust arrangements as needed without resorting to litigation. The note concludes with encouragement to pursue formal training and certification for those interested in becoming capable family mediators, and with a sense of appreciation for the real‑world impact of well‑designed mediation on families.

Key Concepts and Takeaways

• Mediation aims to empower parties to generate their own solutions rather than having decisions imposed by a mediator. It is guided by safety and the minimization of harm, especially for children.
• The Resolution Institute mediation model emphasizes intake, opening statements, reflection and summary using EAR statements, agenda setting, joint sessions, private coaching, option generation, negotiation, and closure. The mediator's discretion to separate participants and use shuttle mediation is a key safety tool.
• EAR statements (Empathy, Attention, Respect) are used to vent safely and validate feelings without endorsing harmful behavior or judging the parties. Examples include expressions of understanding, requests for more information, and nonjudgmental appreciation of the other party’s relationship with their child.
• The intake process includes background, safety screening (including DBSAT in cases with potential violence), and an assessment of whether mediation is appropriate. It may involve notifying the other party and arranging intake in a way that minimizes disruption.
• Opening statements set the stage for the discussion, while reflection and summary (using neutral, child‑focused language) help surface common concerns and reframe arguments around the children’s best interests.
• Common agenda items in parenting mediations include: the time the children spend with each parent, how decisions are made, medical communications, school and extracurricular decisions, disciplining styles, screen time, third‑party involvement, and potential relocation. Financial matters are handled separately.
• Private sessions (coaching) help each party articulate proposals, which are later tested in joint negotiation. The goal is to draft a written parenting plan that both parties sign.
• Child‑inclusive mediation is an optional process in which trained child consultants obtain children’s perspectives and bring them into the mediation discussion, guarded by strict safety and ethical guidelines.
• Gender, culture, and power dynamics influence mediation dynamics; employing co‑mediators, cultural sensitivity, and ongoing self‑care helps address imbalances and maintain neutrality.
• Mediation can be halted or postponed if safety concerns arise, if relationship issues impede productive discussion, or if a short‑term solution for the children is needed while other issues are addressed separately.
• Training and certification (e.g., Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner in Australia) are highlighted as pathways to develop the skills required for effective mediation, supervision, and ongoing professional growth.