Sociology

The case under consideration involves a referral to mediation by a social services agency, initiated by school complaints of potential or suspected, but not documented, abuse of a child. A proceeding is about to be initiated to determine whether the child should be removed from the home in point. Prior to filing, mediation has been proposed. Therefore, this paper discusses two of the most common and most relied on methods of mediation, in order to determine which method of mediation would do justice to the situation, and would serve the purpose of ascertaining whether the child is indeed under abuse or not, and if yes, then what can be done to intervene for the safety and betterment of the child.

The dispute is thus a parent-child dispute, and the interests of the child, being a minor, need to be safeguarded relentlessly. The family is a blended family, meaning to say that one of the parents has married again. The mother of this child is of the view that the child fails to get along with her new husband, and that the child is trying to make her choose between herself and the new husband. The stepfather is of the view that the child has never seen any discipline, and he, the stepfather, is just trying to set things right. The biological father on the other hand, is of the vehement view that the step-parent is an alcoholic and abusive, and that the child, his daughter, is just trying to survive in bad circumstances. Another important view that needs to be put on the table is the childs school counselors, who maintains that the child has severe emotional problems that need family counseling, but the family refuses to get help.

The two most commonly used and most effective methods of mediation are the facilitative mediation method, and the evaluative mediation method. There are two other methods, the transformative and the narrative ones, but for the purpose of this paper and this case, I would emphasize on the first two. Facilitative mediation necessarily takes into account the decision making factor of the issue at hand, the decision making being left to those who are directly involved in the case. That is to say that as is obvious from the name itself, this mediation method has the purpose of only enlightening the involved parties of important perspectives that they might have missed out on since they were emotionally involved, so that they may make better informed decisions. Thus, the mediator is merely that, a mediator, and not a decision maker. The case is similar to that of a doctor where the doctor can only assess the patients situation and guide them as to what might be appropriate, but the doctor cannot force the patient to undergo a certain treatment. The logic behind this system is that once the involved parties are fully informed of every aspect of the situation theyre facing, they will be better able to make a decision that suits all of them, and in turn, is more sustainable than a decision taken irrationally or under the pressure of emotions alone.

An Evaluative Mediation model on the other hand, include mediators who are not just there to evaluate the situation and enlighten the involved parties about the intricacies of the case, but are also legal practitioners with sufficient expertise in the field to which the issue at hand belongs. They offer not only guidance about the conflict under consideration in line with the law regarding the nature of such conflicts, but also offer evaluation in terms of strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities of each partys individual case, as they can be seen from the legal point of view, thus informing them clearly and firmly about their legal positions. They go one step further than facilitative mediation since they are able to, due to their expertise in the field, advise as to the probably outcome if the matter was taken to court. Additionally, since they have this position of an expert in the mediation process, they have the responsibility and capacity to offer settlement options as considerations that the involved parties must not overlook, especially if asked for.

In my opinion then, the case at hand of this abused child, requires Evaluative Mediation since this model has several advantages over the facilitative ones, and can guide the involved parties as to their legal standing and probable outcomes if the matter was taken to court. After all, the issue at hand is the sane development of an innocent child caught in a difficult situation.