Content uploaded by Connie J. A. Beck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Connie J. A. Beck on Jun 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
SHUTTLE AND ONLINE MEDIATION: A REVIEW OF AVAILABLE
RESEARCH AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SEPARATING COUPLES
REPORTING INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OR ABUSE
Fernanda S. Rossi, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy G. Applegate, Connie J. Beck,
Jeannie M. Adams, and Darrell F. Hale
Whether family law cases with a history of severe intimate partner violence and/or abuse (IPV/A cases) should have the option
of settling family-related issues using mediation is the subject of significant debate. Recommendations for potentially safer
ways to mediate IPV/A cases have been developed, including shuttle and online mediation. Given the current lack of research
on these forms of mediation with IPV/A cases, we review the research on shuttle and online mediation in other contexts and
theorize how the findings might apply to IPV/A cases. We argue that, although online and shuttle mediation may benefit IPV/
A cases, aspects of these procedures require special considerations.
Key Points for the Family Court Community:
Based on very limited available research findings, we discuss the possible advantages and disadvantages of conducting
shuttle or online mediation with IPV/A cases.
We provide suggestions and issues to consider for conducting shuttle or online mediation with IPV/A cases, though
any formal recommendations should be made considering data from empirical studies examining these types of media-
tion with IPV/A cases.
We encourage researchers to design studies that compare different forms of mediation and to examine the process of
mediation for parties reporting severe IPV/A. Such studies will help us understand appropriate approaches for assisting
separating or divorcing couples reporting a history of IPV/A.
Keywords: Domestic Violence; Intimate Partner Violence; Online Mediation; Shuttle Mediation; and Videoconferencing
Mediation.
INTRODUCTION
Given the high rates of relationship instability (Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra, 2010) and the
significant number of individuals who experience intimate partner violence and/or abuse (IPV/A;
1
Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), family and divorce mediators will encounter separating or divorcing cou-
ples reporting IPV/A. Whether such cases should be provided the option of settling family-related
issues using mediation is the subject of significant debate (Kelly & Johnson, 2008).
Proponents of mediation argue strongly against restricting mediation for IPV/A cases because
they suggest that, in doing so, these couples will be prohibited from experiencing the benefits that
have been associated with mediation (Edwards, Baron, & Ferrick, 2008). Though few methodologi-
cally strong studies have examined the effects of family mediation versus the traditional adversarial
litigation process, the strongest study to date (Emery, Laumann-Billings, Waldron, Sbarra, & Dillon,
2001) found that those who had completed mediation, in comparison to those who had litigated,
were less likely to relitigate, reported less interparental conflict, and fathers indicated greater satisfac-
tion with settlement outcomes. However, the study did not examine whether such results generalize
to IPV/A cases. Compared to litigation, other benefits of mediation may include reduced costs, effi-
ciency of the process, and opportunities to individualize family arrangements (Adkins, 2010;
Correspondence: fsrossi@indiana.edu; holtzwor@indiana.edu; aga@indiana.edu; Beck@email.arizona.edu; Jeannie.adams@
dcsc.gov; haled@dcsc.gov
FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 3, July 2017 390–403
V
C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Edwards et al., 2008). It is argued, though not proven by empirical evidence, that many of the bene-
fits of mediation may apply to IPV/A cases (Edwards et al., 2008; Pearson, 1997).
Yet, there are numerous concerns regarding the involvement of IPV/A cases in family mediation,
particularly when parties report coercive controlling behaviors that cause fear or intimidation, a his-
tory of severe violence, serious injury, or stalking (all of which we refer to as “severe IPV/A”). For
example, mediation in which the parties sit in the same room, or joint mediation, poses safety risks
for victims of severe IPV/A; parties may also be at risk for continued IPV/A victimization if they
arrive to and leave from mediation at the same time or during encounters in parking lots, hallways,
and waiting areas (Dalton, 1999; Milne, 2004). In addition, a coercive pattern of control may exist in
a mediation setting, whereby parties who perpetrate IPV/A may coerce the other party into formulat-
ing agreements that are not voluntary or in their or their children’s best interests through verbal
manipulation and/or behavioral cues, particularly those conveying intimidation (Beck & Raghavan,
2010; Adkins, 2010; Milne & Folberg, 1988). Thus, parties may reach agreements in mediation that
do not adequately protect the victimized party and his/her children; family arrangements developed
in mediation may lack the necessary safety restrictions and provisions that help prevent future IPV/A
victimization (Putz, Ballard, Arany, Applegate, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2012; Rossi, Holtzworth-
Munroe, & Applegate, 2015). By deeming IPV/A cases inappropriate for mediation, there is an
assumption that litigation is better suited to handle such cases (Edwards et al., 2008). For example,
critics of mediation suggest that victimized parties may be more likely to voice their interests in the
courtroom due to the formality of court hearings (Adkins, 2010), although we are unaware of any
empirical evidence demonstrating that victims are more comfortable expressing themselves in court-
room settings in proximity to their abusers.
The strongest concerns regarding mediation for IPV/A cases are raised about joint mediation,
where parties typically sit in the same room and engage in face-to-face discussion with each other
and a mediator (Frenkel & Stark, 2008). As a result, recommendations for potentially safer ways to
mediate IPV/A cases include shuttle mediation, where parties sit in separate rooms and a mediator
shuttles back and forth between rooms, and online mediation, where parties sit in separate rooms but
can hear, see, or interact with each other via online methods (Milne, 2004; Pearson, 1997; Brennan,
2011). Both variations focus on establishing a safe and protective environment for parties victimized
by IPV/A. However, to date, there is no published empirical research examining these forms of medi-
ation in the context of IPV/A cases, and there are no published studies comparing mediation to litiga-
tion for parties reporting a history of IPV/A.
Such data will eventually be forthcoming, as we are currently conducting a randomized controlled
trial (National Institute of Justice Award 2013-VA-CX-0044) in which parties considered inappropri-
ate for joint family mediation due to high or concerning levels of IPV/A are randomly assigned, if
both parties consent, to settle family-related disputes through one of two forms of mediation that
have been proposed as potentially safer alternatives to joint mediation (i.e., shuttle mediation or vid-
eoconferencing mediation) or through traditional court-based litigation (Holtzworth-Munroe et al.,
2014). Our study follows parties until 1 year after study entry and examines information such as
party satisfaction with, and feelings of safety within, the process to which they were randomly
assigned, relitigation, continued IPV/A victimization, and the psychological functioning of parties
and their children. We do not yet have reportable results, but we hope that our findings will contrib-
ute to the important debate surrounding IPV/A cases and family mediation. In the meantime, given a
lack of prior direct research on mediation for IPV/A cases, we review the published research on shut-
tle and online mediation more generally and then discuss the applicability of these methods to IPV/A
cases.
SHUTTLE MEDIATION
In shuttle mediation, the parties remain in separate rooms and the mediator conducts negotiation
of issues by relaying messages, information, and offers from one party to the other (Moore, 1987).
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 391
Communication between parties is restricted, controlled or filtered, interpreted, and conveyed by the
mediator. Meeting in separate rooms is referred to as caucusing. However, caucusing is not the same
as shuttle mediation; caucusing may describe a temporary separation of parties in a mediation process
that also includes joint sessions, whereas shuttle mediation describes a process where parties are kept
separated throughout, with no joint sessions (Moore, 1987).
Much of the literature reviewed in this section pertains to caucusing. None of the existing studies
have directly examined caucusing or shuttle family mediation in IPV/A cases. Only three studies, to
our knowledge, have examined the impact of caucusing on mediator and disputant behavior (a table
with detailed descriptions of the studies we review can be requested from the authors). In two of the
studies, one conducted by Welton, Pruitt, McGillicuddy, and Ippolito (1992) and the other by Wel-
ton, Pruitt, and McGillicuddy (1988), coders observed and recorded the behaviors of disputants and
mediators during a mediation process consisting of both caucus and joint sessions. Welton and col-
leagues (1992) examined 73 cases from two community mediation centers in New York, while Wel-
ton et al. (1988) examined 49 cases from the Dispute Settlement Center of Western New York.
Mediation was centered on issues such as visitation schedules, complaints about behavior, and return
of property. A third investigation by Swaab (2009) examined information collected from 540
employment dispute mediation cases that involved conflicts regarding breaches of contracts or work
relationships; mediators in this study completed a questionnaire or interview after each mediation
session.
All three studies had methodological limitations. For example, they did not use random assign-
ment to compare caucuses with joint sessions. Instead, mediators only called for caucuses when they
deemed it appropriate, and they usually included a mix of joint and caucus sessions in the mediation.
These procedures make it impossible to determine whether caucuses can be beneficial at certain
points in the mediation process or in the absence of joint sessions. Also, these studies collected very
little, if any, information from the parties directly. Despite these limitations, we integrate the findings
of these three studies throughout our discussion regarding the possible appropriateness of shuttle
mediation for IPV/A cases.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF USING SHUTTLE MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Several aspects of shuttle mediation may be beneficial to separating or divorcing couples with a his-
tory of IPV/A. One of the main possible benefits is that it allows mediating parties to maintain physical
separation, which should promote safety in situations where a party who perpetrates IPV/A may act
violently toward the other party (Milne, 2004). Moreover, creating physical separation between parties
may help disrupt destructive patterns of communication (Moore, 1987). Some mediators call for cau-
cuses when parties begin to demonstrate negative behaviors, such as yelling or making accusations that
may hinder them from moving toward settlement (Moore, 1987). Thus, shuttle mediation may be use-
ful in controlling or minimizing the abusers’ intimidation or victims’ fear, as victimized parties are
unable to hear and see the other party (Hoffman, 2011; Johnston & Ver Steegh, 2013).
In the three studies reviewed, results indicated that during caucus sessions disputants were less
hostile, or there was a reduction in conflict levels between parties at the end of the process when an
initial caucus session was used to build trust with the mediator. Swaab (2009) found that caucuses
were associated with increased agreement rates. While on the other hand, Welton et al. (1992) indi-
cated that caucus sessions did not influence whether or not agreement was reached, disputant satis-
faction with agreements, or whether disputants achieved their goals during the settlement process.
Though different, these findings considered together suggest that creating physical separation
between parties reporting IPV/A during the mediation session may either have no impact on the
mediation process or help reduce conflict, facilitate negotiation of issues, and encourage party
agreement.
Proponents of shuttle mediation with IPV/A cases suggest that private meetings with the mediator
can be useful to parties who demonstrate a need to express strong emotions (e.g., anger, hurt,
392 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
frustration) or who are reluctant to demonstrate emotions. Unwillingness or reluctance to express
emotions or interests may become a stumbling block in negotiation because knowing how parties
feel toward particular issues can help shape settlement outcomes. On the other hand, an overexpres-
sion of emotion may keep parties from considering potentially helpful options and increase conflict
levels (Moore, 1987). Relatedly, private meetings may help mediators establish rapport with the par-
ties. In any style of mediation, rapport building is critical as it facilitates parties’ expression of their
concerns and interests (Hoffman, 2011). Thus, shuttle mediation may help provide a more comfort-
able atmosphere where parties can articulate negative feelings when needed and voice their interests
without being confronted by the other party (Ogawa, 1999; Hoffman, 2011). Parties victimized by
IPV/A in particular may feel more empowered to express their emotions and reactions or share addi-
tional information about the IPV/A that can be vital to consider when determining safe family
arrangements. Given that parties do not have to talk directly to one another in shuttle mediation—
rather, the mediator serves as the medium through which this is done—mediators may further
empower parties in IPV/A cases by helping them more fully and clearly communicate their interests
and concerns (Welton et al., 1988). This is possible, but perhaps more difficult, to accomplish in joint
mediation, as mediators may seem biased if they appear more helpful to one party than the other.
The studies by Welton et al. (1992, 1988) provide some empirical support for the use of private
meetings to assist with mediator rapport building and to help parties express and communicate emo-
tions or interests. Results demonstrated that in caucus sessions, compared to joint sessions, mediators
and disputants allotted more time to discussing the other party and had deeper discussions about the
party’s interests. Furthermore, disputants made more remarks, both negative and positive, about the
other party in caucus sessions. The study by Welton et al. (1988) found specifically that disputants in
caucus sessions, compared to joint sessions, were more able to voice their interests and concerns.
This study also illustrated that mediators were more likely to provide greater support in caucus ses-
sions, compared to joint sessions, toward the party who filed a complaint thus, perhaps, suggesting
that mediators felt greater freedom in empathizing in caucusing as a way of building rapport and
moving the process along (Hoffman, 2011; Welton et al., 1988, 1992).
Another possible advantage of caucus or shuttle mediation is that the physical separation of par-
ties may encourage creativity and brainstorming. This is important when parties are determined to
propose unacceptable positions and thus cannot come to an agreement (Hoffman, 2011). The media-
tor may facilitate brainstorming of additional ideas by offering encouragement of new ideas. This is
likely to be more problematic in a joint session, as there is an increased risk that any idea encouraged
by the mediator could be viewed as favoring one side over the other (Hoffman, 2011). In IPV/A
cases, one party may be adamant about a particular settlement outcome that disregards the interests
of the other party; thus, creativity and brainstorming may be important in helping parties propose
and consider safe family arrangements. Indeed, the studies by Welton et al. (1992, 1988) demon-
strated that parties in caucus sessions were more likely to provide information and develop alterna-
tive resolutions or ideas for how to solve the problem. Mediators were also more likely to ask for
additional information and encourage disputants to formulate alternatives. Thus, shuttle mediation
may increase flexibility and encourage problem solving (Welton et al., 1988).
Overall, in shuttle mediation, as compared to joint mediation, the mediator may have significantly
more control over the process (Hoffman, 2011; Welton et al. 1988, 1992). By meeting privately with
the parties, the mediator may also be more directive about the outcome. If properly trained, mediators
in IPV/A cases may use this opportunity to encourage parties to consider arrangements that focus on
safety issues and concerns expressed by one or both parties. They may also help reframe party pro-
posals so that they are more likely to be accepted by the other party.
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF USING SHUTTLE MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Despite the numerous possible advantages that shuttle mediation may provide IPV/A cases, cer-
tain aspects of this approach may be of concern when mediating with this particular population. For
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 393
example, an inexperienced or inadequately trained mediator may inadvertently encourage resolutions
that could be harmful and dangerous; the mediator may also mistakenly or unknowingly relay infor-
mation to a party that would potentially place the other party in danger or in fear.
Though mediators in the Welton et al. (1988) study were found to have greater control over the
process during caucus sessions, which may help with the development of safe family arrangements
for parties victimized by IPV/A, the Welton et al. (1992) study revealed that, in joint sessions, rather
than caucuses, parties formulated more ideas for the implementation of provisions. While this finding
may suggest that joint mediation facilitates better coordination in implementation, the advantages of
this approach may not be worth compromising the safety of victimized parties in IPV/A cases.
Additionally, the inability to speak directly to the other party and the decreased coordination
between parties in shuttle mediation may negatively impact the efficiency of the process. Given that
the mediator must shuttle back and forth between parties, negotiation may be slower and the duration
of sessions may be longer. Furthermore, the amount of time the mediator spends with each party in a
caucus may result in a perception of bias. For example, a party may perceive the mediator as showing
preference for the other party if their own private meeting is of a shorter duration (Welton et al.,
1988). This perception of bias may cause feelings of anger and resistance to reaching an agreement.
Relatedly, it may be particularly important to consider which party the mediator should meet with
first. One approach is for mediators to meet first with parties who perpetrate IPV/A to possibly estab-
lish greater rapport and to allow them to express themselves without feeling defensive (Pikas, 2002).
An alternative view would be that mediators meet first with the victim, both to assess the victim’s
concerns about the process and to possibly get a fuller understanding of the IPV/A, as parties who
perpetrate IPV/A may deny or minimize their own abusive actions. However, in IPV/A cases media-
tors may, at times, have difficulty determining which party is the victim and which is the perpetrator,
as there are instances in which both parties report victimization by the other party. According to a
narrative perspective on mediation, the party who first gets to tell his/her story is at an advantage
because the other party must defend or argue about the base story of the party who went first. This is
especially true in joint mediation because upon listening to the narrative of the first party, the second
party is often forced to take on a defensive role (Cobb, 1994). Shuttle mediation helps overcome this
issue because the mediator can give each party the chance to share their story as the first story,
regardless of which party the mediator meets with first. Overall, determining which party to approach
first in shuttle mediation may need special consideration when IPV/A is involved.
The process by which the mediator relays information from one party to the other is another fea-
ture of shuttle mediation deserving particular attention when mediating IPV/A cases. In joint media-
tion, parties are aware of all the information in the exact manner it is shared and discussed in
mediation, as both parties and the mediator are present for all discussions. However, in shuttle media-
tion, given that parties are in separate rooms, the mediator may (and indeed should) consider and
review with each party how disclosing certain pieces of information can cause the other party to react
(Frenkel & Stark, 2008). In IPV/A cases, for example, a victimized party may disclose information
to the mediator privately that, if revealed to the other party, could put the victimized party at risk,
cause anger and a desire for retaliation, or be intimidating and frightening. Alternatively, an abusive
party may try to use the mediator to convey a threat that would intimidate or cause a victimized party
to be fearful. In these cases, mediators must be extremely careful and sensitive to the types of infor-
mation disclosed and discuss how such information could impact the other party.
Unfortunately, the three studies reviewed did not examine some important aspects of caucusing,
such as the challenges with disclosing information to parties. Thus, it is unclear at this time whether
several of these concerns about shuttle mediation hold true.
ONLINE MEDIATION
Online mediation incorporates the use of technology to conduct the mediation process (Brennan,
2011) and may take various forms. For example, the mediation process may be conducted using
394 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
videoconferencing technology, where parties are in separate locations but able to see and hear each
other on monitors (Kuhl, 2008). It is also possible for parties to negotiate disputes using only audio-
conferencing technology (using computer equipment or telephones) when viewing the other party
through a monitor is impossible or undesirable. We refer to videoconferencing and audioconferenc-
ing technology collectively as “audio-visual mediation.” Online mediation may also be conducted
using text-based methods of communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging (Gramatikov &
Klaming, 2012; Kulh, 2008). We refer to these types of mediation as “text-based mediation.”
Online mediation has been proposed as a potentially promising settlement process for IPV/A cases
in family law (Brennan, 2011). Online mediation requires a unique setup between parties that may
provide benefits to cases where IPV/A is a concern. For instance, like shuttle mediation, parties
remain physically separated throughout the mediation process, protecting their immediate safety and
helping them express concerns and interests (Brennan, 2011; Melamed, 2004). This setup may also
prove to be a more convenient option for parties who are geographically remote and cannot travel to
the mediation center or location. Both parties and the mediator can engage in the process from their
respective locations if there is access to the appropriate equipment (e.g., computer, telephone).
Despite potential advantages to using online mediation as a settlement process for IPV/A cases in
family law, to our knowledge, there is no existing research regarding online mediation for such cases.
Thus, our analysis is based on research of online mediation in other contexts, and with caution, we
discuss the applicability of research findings to IPV/A cases.
AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIATION
We discovered only three studies pertaining to audio-visual mediation in any context. All three
involved telephone family mediation; they were conducted in Australia where family mediation may
be conducted by phone given large geographic distances between some parties. Unfortunately, how-
ever, these studies did not directly compare phone mediation to other types of mediation or other set-
tlement processes; thus, they do not provide much insight regarding the impact of telephone
mediation. One paper is a report that telephone mediation has been used in resolving family disputes
through the Australian Telephone Dispute Resolution Service, with 75 – 85% of cases reaching
agreement since 2007 (Wilson-Evered, Macfarlane, Zeleznikow, & Thomson, 2011), but little other
information is provided. The second study examined predictors of engagement in telephone family
mediation based on 524 Australian families and found that high levels of acrimony were a reliable
predictor of low engagement in mediation, but IPV/A was not (Morris, Halford, Petch, & Hardwick,
2016), suggesting that parties with IPV/A may be willing to engage in phone mediation. The third
study is a randomized controlled trial of 177 separating Australian families comparing telephone
family mediation with or without motivational interviewing techniques also provided by the media-
tor. Results indicated that motivational interviewing techniques appeared to have a positive result on
agreement rate, but did not affect other important outcomes such as psychological distress, child
functioning, or acrimony (Morris, 2016). Given the insufficient details about telephone family media-
tion, and in the absence of comparisons of phone mediation to other settlement processes, we do not
refer further to these studies in our discussion below.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF USING AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Despite physical separation, audio-visual mediation still permits parties to engage in direct com-
munication, which may increase the speed and efficiency of the process, relative to shuttle mediation
(Katsh, Rifkin, & Gaitenby, 2000). Moreover, direct communication between parties has been shown
to augment discussion about how to implement agreements as this requires coordination between
parties (Welton et al., 1992).
Additionally, if the equipment or software platform allows, mediators may meet privately with
each party when necessary. Mediators can set ground rules before starting the mediation indicating
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 395
to parties that the mediator will hold private meetings when deemed appropriate by the mediator or
requested or signaled for by the parties. Audio-visual mediation may thus provide the advantages
that come with both joint and caucus sessions while also protecting the safety of parties in IPV/A
cases.
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF USING AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Other aspects of these procedures may negatively impact the process for couples with a history of
IPV/A. For example, parties who perpetrate IPV/A may use verbal manipulation and/or nonverbal
and behavioral cues to coerce and intimidate victims into making agreements that are not in their
best interests (Beck & Raghavan, 2010). Relatedly, victimized parties who experienced repeated
incidents of violence and abuse may have developed a conditioned fear response to visual and audio
cues associated with the abusive party (i.e., after several experiences of fear resulting from IPV/A,
the victimized party begins to feel fear every time they encounter the other party). In that case, when
victimized parties see and/or hear the other party in audio-visual mediation, they may experience
feelings of fear or anger that keep the victimized party from being able to express concerns and inter-
ests adequately. Other forms of mediation (e.g., shuttle mediation, text-based mediation, etc.) may
also trigger a conditioned fear response because the victimized party is forced to interact, whether
through a mediator or directly, with the other party. However, a conditioned fear response is espe-
cially likely to manifest in audio-visual mediation, given the more powerful visual and/or audio cues.
Parties who perpetrate IPV/A may also experience negative reactions to having to interact with the
victimized party (Marshall & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010). The strong visual and audio cues may
result in an adverse process for both parties.
The direct and joint communication made possible by audio-visual mediation may be challenging
not only for parties with a history of IPV/A but also for the mediator. Unless the mediator has the
technological capabilities to meet privately with parties, the joint setup may make it difficult for a
victimized party to explore options that minimize future risk of IPV/A in a more comfortable envi-
ronment. Further, from the mediator’s perspective, it should be easier to have this discussion pri-
vately with each party to avoid potentially appearing biased toward one of the parties. Thus, whether
parties in IPV/A cases are able to consider and include appropriate safety provisions in mediation
agreements remains a concern.
Another issue in audio-visual mediation is how and when the mediator has the parties tell their
story. If mediators do not have the capability of meeting privately with the parties during the media-
tion, they must carefully decide whether and when to let parties discuss their narrative as doing so
may put one party at an advantage (Cobb, 1994). Additionally, having each party tell their story may
result in party anger or fear. It is probably preferable for the mediator to meet privately with each
party before the joint audio-visual session to evaluate whether and how much party narrative would
be helpful in the process.
Confidentiality is also an important consideration when conducting audio-visual mediation (Mel-
amed, 2004). Mediators must use equipment and software that protect the privacy of parties given
the confidentiality of the mediation process. Parties must also understand that any video or audio
records should not be used as evidence against the other party in court, although different jurisdic-
tions have different statutes, rules, guidelines, and case law about the confidentiality of mediation
communications (Melamed, 2004). Of course, audio-visual mediation can be conducted without
being recorded by the mediator, although the parties themselves may secretly conduct their own
recordings. Also, mediators must be aware that certain publicly available software platforms, such as
Skype, cannot guarantee confidentiality. There is a risk that when using such platforms, outside par-
ties may monitor or intercept the mediation process. It may be necessary for mediation centers to set
up their own internal equipment and software or seek platforms that ensure confidentiality. Confiden-
tiality issues may be particularly important for IPV/A cases where parties may reveal self-
396 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
incriminating information that could be used in other (e.g., criminal) proceedings. Recordings of
mediation sessions would increase the risk of this kind of use of communication made in mediation.
Another potential problem in audio-visual mediation is the location at which parties choose to
engage in the mediation process. Parties need to complete the mediation in a private, secure, and
quiet location without outside distractions and where confidentiality of both parties is not compro-
mised. Public locations or public access computers may not be appropriate. Even if the party remains
inside the home, s/he must make a note of who is around and might be listening. The unexpected
appearance of a current significant other in the video, for example, might create conflict and disrupt
the flow of the mediation process. If parties do not have access to private locations or the appropriate
equipment or do not display the technological skills necessary to use this equipment, then video con-
ferencing or audio conferencing mediation may not be suitable options.
Overall, audio-visual mediation appears to provide separating or divorcing couples experiencing
IPV/A with some substantial benefits, but several aspects of this approach require careful consider-
ation so as not to compromise the safety and autonomy of parties in IPV/A cases.
TEXT-BASED MEDIATION
Text-based mediation allows parties to communicate from separate locations using text-based
methods that may include instant or delayed forms of communication, such as e-mail or instant mes-
saging (Brennan, 2011).
To our knowledge only two studies have explored the impact of text-based online mediation on
the settlement process, though neither directly examined IPV/A cases. In one study, Gramatikov and
Klaming (2012) examined 56 couples who participated in online mediation using e-mail as the mode
of communication for settling divorce-related issues. In the second study, conducted by Hammond
(2003), 15 mediators and 36 disputants were recruited to participate in an online chat mediation sim-
ulation. Differing scenarios were formulated (e.g., settling family issues, e-commerce disputes), and
participants were instructed to play either the role of a disputant or mediator using online chat as the
mode of communication.
Both studies had small samples and no comparison group, thus making it impossible to compare
text-based online mediation to other forms of mediation. Also, neither study randomly assigned par-
ticipants to online mediation. The samples thus may be inherently biased and have skewed results as
only those who were willing to participate in online mediation were examined. Finally, the study by
Hammond (2003) was based on simulations and may not reflect real-world experiences of text-based
mediation.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES OF USING TEXT-BASED MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Several features of text-based mediation may be helpful for mediating IPV/A cases. The physical
separation between parties preserves their immediate safety (Kuhl, 2008) and may provide a calmer
or safer environment that allows them to feel empowered and more willing to express their interests
and concerns (Brennan, 2011). The Hammond (2003) study provides supporting evidence as dispu-
tants indicated that text-based mediation provided a more comfortable environment for expressing
interests, concerns, and emotions compared to their past experiences with mediation.
Also, the mode of communication afforded by text-based online mediation allows parties to
approach the mediation procedure on equal footing, as physical strength and threatening language
may not be as effective in providing one party with greater advantage or power in decision making
(Brennan, 2011; Goodman, 2003; King, 2000). In cases where IPV/A is involved, this may serve as
a significant advantage.
Further, text-based mediation allows for asynchronous communication (i.e., communication that
is non-instant). This gives parties the opportunity to carefully craft responses and consider proposi-
tions made by the other party. As a result, parties can formulate thoughtful replies and consult with
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 397
others, including an attorney, before responding (Goodman, 2003). Indeed, disputants in the
Hammond (2003) study expressed that text-based mediation allowed them sufficient time to reflect
on settlement propositions. Parties in IPV/A cases may benefit from the extra time to consider their
interests and discuss with others what arrangements might be safest. Parties may also use this time to
take breaks from the mediation when feeling overwhelmed by emotion.
Another advantage of asynchronous communication is that parties are less likely to develop a
false perception of mediator bias (Goodman, 2008). As discussed above, this is a concern in shuttle
mediation. Asynchronous communication may eliminate this perception of bias because the conver-
sation between all parties can occur simultaneously. For example, the mediator may engage in pri-
vate communication with one party while also responding to the other party (Goodman, 2003). The
mediator may also use the private discussions afforded by asynchronous communication to demon-
strate support and help explore options relating to safety, similar to shuttle mediation. Findings of the
Hammond (2003) study indicated that mediators generally found text-based mediation to be effective
for settling disputes as it allowed them to empower parties equally and build rapport with disputants
through the use of private meetings. Additionally, mediators stated that the private meetings did not
disrupt flow of the mediation as conversations could happen simultaneously and without the other
party’s awareness.
Furthermore, Gramatikov and Klaming (2012) specifically examined an asynchronous mode of
communication in text-based mediation and results provide a glimpse of how disputants perceived
this approach. Participants indicated they were treated with respect (mean [M]54.5 out of 5, where
5 indicates agreement to a very large extent), received adequate information (M54.19 out of 5), and
experienced a fair procedure (M54.27 out of 5). Although participants were not able to compare
online mediation to other forms of mediation or settlement processes, approximately 77% indicated
that online mediation was worth the time and money invested.
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES OF TEXT-BASED MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Certain aspects of text-based mediation, particularly those associated with asynchronous commu-
nication, may not be ideal for parties reporting a history of IPV/A. For instance, a party may take a
long time to consider and craft a response. The other party may experience frustration and distress
while waiting for a reply (Brennan, 2011). In IPV/A cases, parties who perpetrate IPV/A may pur-
posely victimize the other party in this manner or, in contrast, the victimized party may inadvertently
anger the other party when taking the extra time needed to craft a response.
In addition, parties may use the extra time to disengage from and rethink settlement propositions
(Brennan, 2011). These behaviors may significantly delay the mediation process for parties who may
have a need to promptly decide on safe family arrangements; parties may also experience prolonged
distress from having to indirectly interact with one another as a result of the lengthy process. The
potential delays in the process can make it more difficult for mediators to gain control of the media-
tion and manage the pace of mediation due to inconsistent response rates from disputants (Ham-
mond, 2003).
The behind-the-computer mode of communication in text-based mediation may also encourage
parties to use more aggressive and unrestricted language (Brennan, 2011). Studies examining online
communication, not just within the context of mediation, provide empirical evidence that text-based
discussions, compared to face-to-face discussions, can be less inhibited and more aggressive in
nature (Joinson, 2007; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). Studies indicate that the online environment
can lower psychological restraints that would normally guide behavior in face-to-face communica-
tion, thus producing an online disinhibition effect. The online disinhibition effect may lead to hostile
and derogatory communication as a result of various factors, such as invisibility (i.e., hiding behind a
computer screen) or the ease with which negative interactions can be terminated (e.g., shutting off
the computer screen; Joinson, 2007; Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). This may be especially concern-
ing when mediating IPV/A cases as parties may be inclined to use abusive language during the
398 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
mediation process. Although Gramatikov and Klaming (2012) did not examine language use directly,
results of that study indicated that only 31% of disputants reported that text-based mediation was
worth the experienced stress and negative emotions, and 44% of participants said they felt moderate
or severe feelings of frustration. On the contrary, disputants in the Hammond (2003) study indicated
that text-based online mediation was overall less threatening, intimidating, and hostile compared to
face-to-face mediation. This difference in the experience of text-based online mediation may be
impacted by whether or not mediators set ground rules prior to beginning mediation to help have
greater control over the process, such as putting time constraints on response rates, disallowing
threatening language, and encouraging parties to use emoticons or symbols to express emotion
(Hammond, 2003).
Finally, the technological aspects of text-based mediation that make it a unique approach for con-
ducting mediation may be in some ways a disadvantage. For one, parties must be computer savvy
and be able to read, write, and type (Hammond, 2003). Additionally, communication in this form of
mediation is digitalized. This engenders concerns about confidentiality because the mediation pro-
cess will, by nature, produce electronic records that could be used as incriminating evidence in a
court proceeding (Cunha, 2008).
AUTHORS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHUTTLE MEDIATION OR ONLINE
MEDIATION WITH IPV/A CASES
Our recommendations should be considered with caution given the lack of empirical studies
examining shuttle and online mediation with IPV/A cases, pending eventual completion of our own
research (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2014); as noted above, we cannot be sure that findings from
other types of mediation will generalize to family mediation with IPV/A cases. Our recommenda-
tions are suggestions based on the current state of the field, rather than proposed guidelines or poli-
cies. At this time, there is insufficient empirical evidence to determine whether shuttle or online
mediation are safer (or as safe) for IPV/A cases than traditional court-based litigation or joint media-
tion. There may be IPV/A cases that benefit from joint mediation or other settlement processes. For
example, there are clinical reports of victims of coercive controlling abuse preferring face-to-face
mediation as a way to monitor the reactions of the abuser and have the chance to say things directly
to the abuser that could not be said in the past (assuming the victim feels safe in the joint session).
We also cannot state whether shuttle mediation is more or less beneficial than online mediation for
IPV/A cases. Additionally, we cannot make recommendations about whether shuttle or online media-
tion should be required or simply an option for IPV/A cases. Relatedly, we do not assume that the
advantages and disadvantages we discuss for online and shuttle mediation apply to all IPV/A cases
and to all types of IPV/A. Further research is needed to determine how shuttle and online mediation
can be beneficial and for which IPV/A cases.
However, based on the few available research findings, we conclude that both shuttle mediation
and online mediation may present several advantages over joint mediation for many couples report-
ing IPV/A, including increased safety protections as well as opportunities to express concerns and
voice interests in a protected environment. Despite the advantages, for each type of mediation, medi-
ators must consider carefully and proceed with caution when mediating with this population. For
example, mediators conducting shuttle mediation should pay particular attention to party suspicions
of mediator bias when in private meetings. Mediators must also be adequately trained to exert appro-
priate control over the settlement process and be more directive in the process, including how to con-
vey information and messages between the parties; help parties identify important issues, interests,
and concerns; and help parties consider detailed, safe arrangements consistent with their interests and
concerns.
When conducting audio-visual mediation, mediators must be able to determine if any party dem-
onstrates heightened physiological and emotional responses to seeing and/or hearing the other party.
Such emotional responses may hinder parties from being able to adequately mediate issues.
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 399
Moreover, given opportunities for behavioral and verbal manipulation, a victimized party who has
experienced coercive controlling behaviors from the other party may be intimidated into agreeing to
unsafe family arrangements. Thus, we recommend that mediators carefully consider whether to con-
duct audio-visual mediation with particularly fearful parties or those reporting fear or intimidation as
a result of severe IPV/A. We also recommend that the mediator provide opportunities for meeting
privately with the parties to be able to check in with the parties about how they are experiencing the
process and to be more directive in testing reality about safety and the possibility of continuing abuse
in proposed arrangements.
In text-based mediation, mediators must carefully consider whether parties demonstrate the com-
puter and literacy skills necessary to successfully participate in the process. Also, mediators must
receive proper training to effectively direct the mediation, manage the pace of the process, control
aggressive language, and reduce feelings of distress for parties.
In all forms of mediation, mediators must consider confidentiality issues. We recommend that,
prior to mediation, mediators clarify confidentiality concerns with the parties, particularly restrictions
on and exceptions to the use of mediation communications by parties and electronic records as evi-
dence in court, what will and will not be shared during private discussions, and where and around
whom mediation can take place (Melamed, 2004). Mediators must also consider that, despite protec-
tions from physical harm during shuttle and online mediation, victimized parties may still be at risk
for IPV/A outside of mediation, especially if parties do not adhere to safe family arrangements estab-
lished in mediation. Research has demonstrated that abusers may continue to use any future interac-
tions with the victim to retaliate and harass the victim (e.g., Campbell et al., 2003; Catalano, 2012).
Thus, all mediators, regardless of approach, need to be aware of this potential danger when helping
parties to determine safe family arrangements.
Although we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of shuttle and online mediation as if these
were mutually exclusive processes, we recognize that mediators often elect to combine mediation
approaches. Mediators may choose to integrate shuttle, online, or joint mediation in ways that best
meet the needs of IPV/A cases. For example, some victims may prefer a shuttle format with their par-
ticipation by audio-visual means solely with the mediator (i.e., the victim is not physically present at
the location where the mediator and abuser are present). Alternatively, some IPV/A cases may benefit
from private meetings with the mediator as well as face-to-face communication between the parties
using audio-visual techniques. Unfortunately, based on the existing research, it is unclear how a com-
bination of mediation approaches can impact IPV/A cases. We encourage researchers to examine
how key aspects of each approach can be combined to best assist separating or divorcing families
with a history of IPV/A.
CONCLUSION
Overall, additional high-quality empirical research is critical in advancing the field on how to
appropriately assist family law cases with a history of IPV/A. Thus, we encourage researchers to
design studies that compare different forms of mediation and/or examine the process for parties
reporting severe IPV/A. Such studies will shed light on the appropriate approaches for assisting sepa-
rating or divorcing couples reporting a history of IPV/A.
NOTE
1. IPV/A may be defined as the use of physically violent (e.g., kicking), sexually violent (e.g., rape), psychologically abu-
sive (e.g., calling names), stalking (e.g., spying), or controlling behaviors (e.g., control of money spent) from one intimate part-
ner towards another (Breiding et al., 2015).
400 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
REFERENCES
Adkins, M. (2010). Moving out of the 1990s: An argument for updating protocol on divorce mediation in domestic about
cases. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism,22, 97–131.
Beck, C. J. A., & Raghavan, C. (2010). Intimate partner abuse screening in custody mediation: The importance of measuring
coercive control. Family Court Review,48, 555–565.
Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance:
Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 2.0. Atlanta (GA): National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from https://www.cdc.gov/violence-
prevention/pdf/ipv/intimatepartnerviolence.pdf
Brennan, R. (2011). Mismatch.com: Online dispute resolution and divorce. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution,13, 97–
224.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femi-
cide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health,93, 1089–
1097.
Catalano, S. (2012, November). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice. Retrieved March 13, 2016, from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf
Cobb, S. (1994). A narrative perspective on mediation: Toward the materialization of the “storytelling” metaphor. In J. P. Fol-
ger & T. S. Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation: Communication research and perspectives (pp. 48–63). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunha, E. (2008). The potential importance of incorporating online dispute resolution into a universal mediation model for
international child abduction cases. Connecticut Journal of International Law,24, 1–25.
Dalton, C. (1999). When paradigms collide: Protecting battered parents and their children in the family court system. Family
and Conciliatory Courts,37, 273–290.
Edwards, H. L., Baron, S., & Ferrick, G. (2008). A comment on William J. Howe and Hugh McIsaac’s article “Finding the
Balance” published in the January 2008 issue of Family Court Review.Family Court Review,46, 586–591.
Emery, R. E., Laumann-Billings, L., Waldron, M. C., Sbarra, D. A., & Dillon, P. (2001). Child custody mediation and litiga-
tion: Custody, contact, and coparenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology,69, 323–332.
Frenkel, D. N., & Stark, J. H. (2008). The practice of mediation. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Goodman, J. W. (2003). The pros and cons of online dispute resolution: An assessment of cyber-mediation websites. Duke
Law and Technology Review,2, 1–13.
Goodwin, P. Y., Mosher, W. D., & Chandra, A. (2010). Marriage and cohabitation in the United States: A statistical portrait
based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth—Vital Health Stat 23(28). Hyattsville, MD: National
Center for Health Statistics.
Gramatikov, M., & Klaming, L. (2012). Getting divorced online: Procedural and outcome justice in online divorce mediation.
Journal of Law and Family Studies,14, 1–30.
Hammond, A. G. (2003). How do you write “yes”?: A study on the effectiveness of online dispute resolution. Conflict Resolu-
tion Quarterly,20, 261–286.
Hoffman, D. A. (2011). Mediation and the art of shuttle diplomacy. Negotiation Journal,27, 263–309.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Beck, C. J.A., Applegate, A., Rossi, F. S., Adams, J., & Hale, D. F. (2014). Intimate partner violence
and custody decisions: A randomized controlled trial of outcomes from family court, shuttle mediation, and videoconfer-
encing mediation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Johnston, J. R., & Steegh, N. V. (2013). Historical trends in family court response to intimate partner violence: Perspectives of
critics and proponents of current practices. Family Court Review,51, 63–73.
Joinson, A. N. (2007). Disinhibition and the internet. In J. Gackenbach (Ed.), Psychology and the internet: Intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and transpersonal implications (2nd ed., pp. 75–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Katsh, E., Rifkin, J., & Gaitenby, A. (2000). E-commerce, E-disputes, E-dispute resolution: In the shadow of “eBay Law”.
Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,15, 705–734.
King, D. (2000). Internet mediation: A summary. The Australian Dispute Resolution Journal,11, 180–186.
Kuhl, A. (2008). Family law online: The impact of the internet. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,
21, 225–244.
Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition.
Computers in Human Behavior,28, 434–443.
Marshall, A. D., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2010). Recognition of wives’ emotional expressions: A mechanism in the relation-
ship between psychopathology and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Psychology,24, 21–30.
Melamed, J. C. (2004). Divorce mediation and the internet. New York: Guilford.
Milne, A. L. (2004). Mediation and domestic abuse. In J. Folberg, A. L. Milne, & P. Salem (Eds.), Divorce and family
mediation (pp. 304–335). New York: Guilford.
Milne, A., & Folberg, J. (1988). The theory and practice of divorce mediation: An overview. New York: Guilford.
Moore, C. W. (1987). The caucus: Private meetings that promote settlement. Mediation Quarterly,16, 87–101.
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 401
Morris, M. (2016). Motivational interviewing and family mediation: Outcomes for separated families. Doctoral thesis, Univer-
sity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved April 15, 2017, from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:409715
Morris, M., Halford, W. K., Petch, J., & Hardwick, D. (2016). Predictors of engagement in family mediation and outcomes for
families that fail to engage. Family Process,55, 1–17.
Ogawa, N. (1999). The concept of facework: Its function in the Hawaii model of mediation. Mediation Quarterly,17, 5–20.
Pearson, J. (1997). Divorce mediation and domestic violence. Final Report. NIJ Award 93-NIJ-CX-0036. Document No.
164658.
Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the shared concern method. School Psychology International,23, 307–326.
Putz, J. W., Ballard, R. H., Arany, J. G., Applegate, A. G., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2012). Comparing the mediation agree-
ments of families with and without a history of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review,50, 413–428.
Rossi, F. S., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Applegate, A. G. (2015). Does level of intimate partner violence and abuse predict
content of family mediation agreements? Family Court Review,53, 134–161.
Swaab, R. (2009). Face first: Pre-mediation caucus and face in employment disputes. Presented at the 22
nd
Annual
International Association of Conflict Management Conference.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner
violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women,6, 142–161.
Welton, G. L., Pruitt, D. G., & McGillicuddy, N. B. (1988). The role of caucusing in community mediation. Journal of
Conflict Resolution,32, 181–202.
Welton, G. L., Pruitt, D. G., McGillicuddy, N. B., & Ippolito, C. A. (1992). Antecedents and characteristics of caucusing in
community mediation. International Journal of Conflict Management,3, 303–317.
Wilson-Evered, E., Macfarlane, D., Zeleznikow, J., & Thomson, M. (2011). Towards an online dispute resolution service in
Australia. Mobile Technologies for Conflict Management,2, 125–138.
Fernanda S. Rossi is a doctoral candidate in Indiana University’s (IU) clinical science program within the
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. She received a bachelor’s degree in psychology and
romance languages at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2011, where she began conducting
research examining the behavioral interactions of romantic couples. At IU, she continues to study couples
but has focused exclusively on those with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) and seeking family
mediation services. Specifically, she has been involved in testing IPV assessment tools within the family medi-
ation context and examining the implications of the mediation process for families reporting IPV. She is also
currently assisting in conducting a National Institute of Justice–funded research project that compares the
outcomes of shuttle mediation, videoconferencing mediation, and traditional court-based litigation for separat-
ing or divorcing parties reporting high levels of IPV.
Amy Holtzworth-Munroe received her Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Washington in
1988. She is a professor in IU’s Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, where she joined the fac-
ulty in the fall 1988. She also serves as the department’s director of graduate studies. She has conducted
research on IPV since the mid-1980s. For over ten years, she has conducted research on family law, includ-
ing developing and testing the best methods of IPV screening in family mediation and conducting randomized
controlled trials testing the effectiveness of family law interventions (e.g., different mediation approaches,
online parent programs). Her research is currently conducted at the IU Law School Mediation Center and
courts around Indiana (e.g., an ongoing study in Muncie). In addition, working at the Washington, DC Supe-
rior Court Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Center, the research team is conducting a study comparing out-
comes of shuttle mediation, videoconferencing mediation, and return to court (without mediation) for parties
with a history of high levels of IPV.
Amy G. Applegate is a clinical professor of law and director of the Viola J. Taliaferro Family and Children
Mediation Clinic at the IU Maurer School of Law in Bloomington. She teaches mediation theory and practice
in the clinical law program that she developed at the law school. She and her students also collaborate in
research and training with faculty and graduate students from the IU Department of Psychological and Brain
Sciences to improve existing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and develop additional interven-
tions for high-conflict families. She received her bachelor’s degree (with distinction in all subjects) in 1978
from Cornell University and earned her J.D. (cum laude) in 1981 from Harvard Law School. She was
admitted to practice law in Indiana in 1998 and has been a registered domestic relations mediator in Indi-
ana since 2002. She is also admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia (since 1981) and Ohio
(since 1987; currently inactive).
Connie J. Beck, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Arizona, Department of Psychology.
For the past 20 years, she has conducted research investigating short- and long-term outcomes for divorcing
couples experiencing IPV and mediating their disputes. This work includes an extensive, longitudinal, archival
study through multiple official databases (e.g., mediation, superior court, law enforcement). With colleagues
402 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
from IU, she developed a risk assessment instrument for the mediation context and is currently conducting a
randomized controlled trial of two models of divorce mediation for highly violent couples (i.e., shuttle and
videoconferencing) as compared to those couples returning to court. Her recent research includes a pilot
study testing a batterer treatment program adapted for adolescent boys charged with domestic violence
against a parent/primary caregiver. She is also involved in research investigating children and adolescents
who repeatedly return to the child welfare system and involuntarily committed individuals who repeatedly
return to the civil commitment process.
Jeannie M. Adams, M.A., is the director of the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division for the DC Superior
Courts where she oversees the ADR programs that provide mediation services to litigants in the civil, family,
tax, and probate courts. She is an accomplished conflict resolution practitioner with over 25 years of experi-
ence working in the public sector. She has provided administrative oversight to state courts, state agencies,
and municipal ADR programs, including the Massachusetts Superior Courts, the Massachusetts Commission
Against Discrimination, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Environ-
mental Affairs. She was formerly the director of public sector ADR programs for the Massachusetts Office of
Dispute Resolution, where she crafted ADR qualifications for mediators, facilitators, trainers, and ADR con-
sultants. She was a member of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution Education
Sub-Committee and served as a mediator for the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in the New England
Region and the Massachusetts U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural and Rural Development Mediation
Programs. She has also co-instructed a course in ethics in dispute resolution in the graduate program of
dispute resolution at the University of Massachusetts. She received her M.A. in dispute resolution from the
University of Massachusetts’ McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies and her M.A. in
legal studies and paralegal certification from the College of Public and Community Service at the University
of Massachusetts.
Darrell F. Hale is the director of the Crime Victims Compensation Program (CVCP) of the DC Superior
Court, which helps victims of violent crime with the economic losses that are often a consequence of this
type of victimization. Each year, CVCP provides crime victims and their families with compensation for medi-
cal expenses, lost wages, funeral expenses, emergency housing, and mental health services, among other
things. Before joining CVCP, he served as the ADR branch chief of the family and community programs at
the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the DC Superior Court. In that role, he worked closely with
program managers and their staff to develop and improve services for clients, mediators, and judges. He
joined Multi-Door in 1995, where he has served as a mediator, a mentor, and a trainer for the family medi-
ation and child protection mediation programs. He has also served as the program director for the Program
for Agreement and Cooperation in Contested Custody Cases (PAC), which offers educational seminars to
parents involved in contested custody cases. The PAC program also provides a parallel seminar for children
that are caught in the middle of those disputes. Prior to joining the DC Superior Court, he divided his time
between his private law practice, which specialized in divorce, custody, and domestic violence issues, and his
court-appointed work as an attorney representing parents and children in child abuse and neglect cases. He
has a law degree from Howard University School of Law and a B.A. from the University of Denver.
Rossi et al./IPV AND MEDIATION 403
