A GUIDE TO EFFECTIVE CHILD PROTECTION MEDIATION: LESSONS FROM 25 YEARS OF PRACTICE

Family Court Review

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 38-52

  Giovannucci, Marilou ^a   Largent, Karen ^b  

^a Court Services Officer Programs for the Connecticut Judicial Branch ^*  (United States)

^b Dispute Resolution Coordinator for the Alaska Court System   (United States)

Author keywords

child protection mediation; child welfare; conciliatory process; mediator competency and training; parental and child involvement; power imbalances; program planning and monitoring; role of the child protection mediator

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956269928     PISSN: 15312445     EISSN: 17441617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.00238.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Anderson, G. R., & Whalen, P. (2004). Permanency planning mediation pilot program: Evaluation final report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, School of Social Work.
2. Baron, S. (1997). Dependency court mediation—The roles of the participants. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 149–159.
3. Carns, T. W., DiPietro, S. D., Connors, J. F., Cotton, W. T., & Vandercook, M. (1996). Improving the court process for Alaska's children in need of aid. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Judicial Council. Retreived September 11, 2008, from http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/reports/cina96.pdf
4. Dobbin, S. A., et al. (2006). Introducing child permanency mediation in New York State: Planning and implementing a multi-site pilot project. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Permanency Planning for Children Department. Retreived September 11, 2008, from http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/adr/Publications/Reports/Permanency_Mediation_TAB.pdf
5. Edwards, L. (2004). Mediation in child protection cases. Journal of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 5, 57–69.
6. Edwards, L. (2007). Achieving timely permanency in child protection courts: The importance of frontloading the court process. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 58(2), 1–37.
7. Firestone, G. (1997). Dependency mediation: Where do we go from here? Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 223–238.
8. Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, Circuit Court Mediators Rule 10.100(d) (2000) Retreived September 11, 2008, from http://www.flcourts.org/gen_public/adr/certrules.shtml
9. Giovannucci, M. T. (1997). Understanding the role of the mediator in child protection proceedings. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 143–148.
10. Henry, A. H. (2005). Mediating child protection disputes—A Canadian perspective: Are we leaving room for the child at the table? Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Arlene H. Henry Law Corporation Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.mediator-roster.bc.ca/Henry_Mediating_CP_Disputes.pdf
11. Mayer, B. (1989). Mediation in child protection cases: The impact of third-party intervention on parental compliance attitudes. Mediation Quarterly, 24, 89–106.
12. Office of the Executive Secretary, Supreme Court of Virginia. (2002). Child dependency mediation. Retreived September 11, 2008, from http://www.courts.state.va.us/publications/child_dependency_mediation_report.pdf
13. Olson, K. B. (2003). Lessons learned from a child protection mediation program: If at first you succeed and then you don't.. Family Court Review, 41, 480–496.
14. Shaw, M., & Phear, W. P. (1991) Innovation in dispute resolution: Case status conferences for child protection and placement proceedings in the state of Connecticut. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 29, 270–290.
15. Thoennes, N. (1991). Mediation and the dependency court: The controversy and three courts’ experiences. Family Court Review, 29, 246–258.
16. Thoennes, N. (1994) Child protection mediation in the juvenile court: A significant improvement over pretrial approaches. The Judges’ Journal, 33, 14–19.
17. Thoennes, N. (2002). Hamilton county juvenile court, permanent custody mediation. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.
18. Thoennes, N. (2009). What we know now: Findings from dependency mediation research. Family Court Review, 47, 21–37.