This report discusses an evaluation of the family mediation pilot that was developed in response to the Law Commission's 2003 report "Dispute Resolution in the Family Court". The Law Commission recommended that non-judge led mediation be introduced as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the Family Court. In the pilot, family mediation was available to parties involved in day-to-day care, contact and guardianship proceedings. Family mediation is based on an inclusive model and has several aims which include: to provide assistance to parties to develop their own solutions in relation to their children's care; to resolve disputes faster; and to provide for the participation of children in the decision-making process. The study was undertaken to enable the Ministry of Justice to identify any implementation issues, assess the experiences of various participants (including their satisfaction with the process), and to assess the costs of the pilot. It was piloted in North Shore, Hamilton, Porirua and Christchurch Family Courts between March 2005 and June 2006. Data was collected via document review and evaluation (associated with mediation processes), interviews, and surveys. Although 540 Family Court cases were offered family mediation during the above period, 380 (70%) were referred to mediators, and of these, a total of 257 were completed by 30 June 2006. A major focus of the evaluation was to determine why the number of referrals (expected to be 60 cases per month across the four courts) fell far short of what was estimated. Largely, this was due to lack of clarity about who was eligible for referral. There were several reasons that courts did not refer cases to mediation. One of these was when information concerning domestic violence or sexual abuse had become evident. This led to a reassessment of the appropriateness of referral. In some of the courts it was found that staff had difficulty in trying to decide what level of domestic violence made a party unsuitable for referral to family mediation. Cases involving domestic violence were referred to mediation in all four courts, but only if the perpetrator had attended an appropriate intervention programme or the violence was historical. Results indicate that there were some participants with a history of domestic violence, and that some women felt uncomfortable in terms of being in close proximity to a violent ex-partner. Where a case involved allegations of sexual abuse they were not considered appropriate for family mediation in any of the pilot courts. Cases with CYFS involvement had been referred to mediation in a few instances. However, this was seen as inappropriate because resolution is not possible without CYFS input or agreement. It was found that, in these few cases, the family court coordinator did not know CYFS were involved. It is unclear how this situation could be addressed, other than by improvement of the information sharing process between government departments. Overall, the pilot was considered successful and gave parties the opportunity to address their differences in a congenial setting outside the court, with professional support. Parties were found to improve their communication and level of cooperation in relation to their children. A number of suggestions are made for Ministry of Justice consideration, should family mediation be offered more widely. An appendix provides a comparative analysis between pilot mediations and mediations conducted prior. Record #2611

nz