Recently, a new approach called clinical mediation has come to the fore. Unlike the adversarial procedures that litigation involves, clinical mediation promotes mutual child-centered decision making and recognizes the value of all of the adults who care about the child. And, unlike traditional mediation – in which lawyers attempt to persuade contending parties to adjust or settle their dispute – clinical mediation is conducted by therapists with expertise in adoption and family systems issues. Its value for adoptive families, birth families and most importantly, children is being proven across the country. Take for example two recent court cases:

Baby Pete. The judge in this Vermont case was faced with a fierce dispute involving Baby Pete’s adoptive parents, his birth mother and his birth father. Baby Pete’s birth parents, married with two daughters, separated before he was conceived. The birth mother began a new relationship and became pregnant, believing her boyfriend to be the baby’s father. In the throes of a divorce from her husband, the birth mother decided with her boyfriend to place the baby for adoption. After choosing an adoptive family whom she liked very much and making plans for an open adoption, she and her boyfriend signed the necessary papers. After Baby Pete’s birth, the birth mother’s husband, who under Vermont law was the legal father came forward claiming to be the baby’s biological father as well. DNA tests confirmed that he was correct. He then contested the adoption claiming that he should be awarded custody of Baby Pete. The adoptive family, with the support of the birth mother, urged the court to award them custody.

In an unusual move, the judge summoned a mediator – Dr. Joyce Maguire-Pavao, Director of the Center For Family Connections of Cambridge, MA. And a clinician with years of adoption experience – to the courtroom. He asked her to work with the family toward a possible resolution. Through the mediation conducted by Dr. Pavao over the course of the day, the adults reached an agreement. Baby Pete would remain with his adoptive family but would have contact with his birth mother and his birth father. The parties also agreed that the birth certificate would contain the names of the adoptive mother and the birth father, something that was very important to the birth father. The adoptive father fully supported this step, feeling no need to have his name on the birth certificate. As time progressed, the adoptive father, who himself was a birth father at age 17, and Baby Pete’s birth father became good friends. Baby Pete has visits with both birth parents and has a particularly strong relationship with his birth father.

Baby D. A three year court battle in the Baby D case ensued after Baby D’s birth father claimed that he had never relinquished his parental rights to Baby D. Baby D had been adopted by a couple when he was only several weeks old. The birth father was in a West Virginia jail when he learned that he had a nine month old son, and upon learning of his child, he immediately challenged the adoption. The New Jersey trial Court overturned the adoption, and the court of appeals upheld the ruling. The state appellate court, however, ordered a hearing in which the birth father was required to show that Baby D would not suffer “serious harm” in his custody. In the course of that hearing the adults were able to reach a settlement in which Baby D remained with the adoptive parents, but the birth father was awarded secondary residential custody with “significant parenting time”. Designed, as the judge stated, to allow Baby D the “benefit of all the parties love and affection”, the agreement was crafted to recognize the role and responsibilities of all of the adults in Baby D’s life. Dr. David Brodzinsky, an associate professor of development and clinical psychology at Rutgers University who advised the adoptive couple at the inception of the case, noted that Baby D “was inextricably tied to two families and always will be. The key is to make sure the adults reach a level of communication that benefits the child. 

Just as clinical mediation was useful in resolving these disputed court cases, it is also being used more extensively in a preventive manner – to work out issues that have arisen between birth and adoptive families before any party resorts to litigation. In these instances, birth parents, whose needs and interests have historically not been well met by the adoption system, have found a process that respects them, and makes it possible for them and for the other adults in the child’s life, to claim their unique roles in their children’s lives. Clinical mediation, for example, has been used:

• To respond to the interests of birth fathers and their families. In a private infant adoption, the birth mother refused to identify the birth father. The baby was placed with an adoptive family and when the baby was 13 months old, the birth father and his family came forward to oppose the adoption, which had not yet been finalized. The paternal grandparents, more so than the birth father himself, were adamant that they could not “lose” the as had many other members of their family who had placed their children for adoption. They retained an attorney to work aggressively to pursue custody of the baby on their behalf. The concerned parties – all of whom were willing to pursue mediation to resolve the issues – lived in various locations across the United states: the adoptive parents in Maine, the birth mother in Colorado, the birth father in San Diego, and the paternal grandparents in Virginia. One of the key areas of focus was the fear expressed by the paternal grandparents that they would “lose” the child through adoption and their sense that custody was the only solution. Through clinical mediation, the parties were able to develop an understanding and appreciation of the unique contributions that each adult could make to the child. With that foundation, they were able to reach an agreement. The baby would remain with the adoptive parents but all parties – the birth mother, birth father and the paternal grandparents – would all have contact with him. In addition, three names would appear on the birth certificate: the adoptive mother, the adoptive father, and the birth father. The parties, through meeting and talking, developed trust in one another, and now have a good relationship which permits all of the adults who love the child to play a role in his life. 

• To resolve issues in “open adoption’ arrangements in which openness has been agreed to without the parties fully understanding what it means. In an adoption which had not yet been finalized and in which the birth mother and the adoptive parents had agreed to openness, the birth mother habitually arrived at the adoptive family’s home unannounced and attempted to involve herself in parenting the child. Tensions and frustrations resulted and the relationship between the adoptive family and the birth mother significantly deteriorated. The adults agreed to participate in clinical mediation. The therapist focusing on the child, made it clear to all parties that the current arrangement was not a healthy one and that the situation had to change immediately. She outlined the birth mother’s choices as going to court and seeking custody or redoing the adoption as a closed adoption while she and the adoptive parents worked through the issues. As she weighed these choices, the birth mother acknowledged that she had chosen the adoptive family for her child and continued to believe that they were the right family for her child. Recognizing that she was not allowing them to parent, she decided that she did indeed need to “back-off’. By mutual agreement, the adoption was tightly closed while the parents worked together to develop clear rules and roles that would apply in re-opening the adoption. Through the process, the adoptive parents and the birth mother built trust in one another, developed an appreciation for the role of each other and successfully re-opened the adoption.

• To address issues that inject insecurity into the relationships: In a finalized open adoption of a one year old, the birth mother began to demand that she be given a greater role in making decisions affecting the child. When dissatisfied with the adoptive parents’ response, she informed them that the adoption agency had not followed the required procedures for obtaining her surrender and the adoption was illegal. She began to allude to the possibility that she could take them to court to reverse the adoption. The birth mother was correct that the agency had violated certain aspects of state law in taking the surrender. She also acknowledged, however, that she had voluntarily made the decision to place the child for adoption and had herself chosen the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents and the birth mother agreed to enter clinical mediation and by agreement the adoption was closed with contact permitted only in the mediators office. A key focus of the process was on mediating a solution that was informed by the difference between openness and co-parenting. At one point, the therapist “heated things up” by telling the birth mother that she had a choice to make: to go to court or accept the adoption. Through skilled counseling, the the birth mother and the adoptive mother were able to express their feelings of frustration, defensiveness and mistrust and work toward trust and confidence in one another. As the two women experienced a real understanding of one another, they fell into each other’s arms crying. The therapist, Michael Colberg of the Center For family Connections, witnessed a process in which “You could feel at that moment a transfer of the emotional right to parent”. The family left with an appreciation of the role that each had and would continue to play in supporting the child as he grew. They also understood the complexity of their relationship and felt able to return for help as needed. 

These examples reveal the power of clinical mediation to bring together birth parents, adoptive parents and extended family members in a process that focuses on what is best for the child and which promotes mutual respect for the roles and responsibilities of the adults who care for the child.

Mediation and Permanency for Children in Foster Care

Clinical mediators note that mediation differs significantly from the adversarial processes that characterize the decision making of the Baby Richard, Baby Jessica and Baby Emily cases. Clinical mediation, as Michael Colberg points out, provides a process that “allows the parties to be human beings together, not actors playing out their respective roles. It allows them to get back to what they share – their love for this child.” This mutuality, however, should not obscure the fact that clinical mediation is a challenging process for all concerned. Dr. Joyce Maguire-Pavao explains that clinical mediation requires that all of the adults participating in the process take risks and often “to focus on what they do not want to focus on” – finding solutions that center around the child’s rather than the adults’ interests first. Interestingly, however, she notes that people often do not really want to do what they feel they are forced to do once the situation escalates into a highly charged conflict. Grandparents, for example, may not actually want full custody of their grandchild but may see it as the only recourse to “losing” the child to an adoptive family; a birth mother may believe that going to court is the only way to resolve the conflicting feelings she has about an inadequately planned open adoption that leaves her feeling as if she has no real role; and adoptive parents may feel that “fighting” the birth parent in court is the only way to ensure that the child has the benefit of their love and will not be “reclaimed”. Clinical mediation provides the opportunity for all parties to explore a range of alternatives and make a plan for the child that is constantly evaluated against a child-centered standard.

The Mediation Process

Whether clinical mediation is used in a contested adoption case pending before the court or in a situation in which problems have arisen but have not yet escalated to litigation, the process usually involves a series of meetings with sufficient time between meetings for all parties to reflect on the issues and decisions that need to be made. Clinical mediators emphasize the importance of working with all parties together. While occasional meetings with individuals may be needed, the principal approach is meeting together with birth parents, adoptive parents, extended family members, and the professionals who are involved with the families. The clinical mediation process typically involves:

Clarification of the Issues and the Goal
The clinical mediation begins with a clear statement of the issues that need resolution and the feelings and positions of each of the participating individuals – birth parents, adoptive parents, extended family and professionals. The goal of the clinical mediation process is stated clearly, emphasizing, in the words of Dr. Joyce Maguire Pavao, that while “adults are important, the focus is on the child” and reminding the adults that the purpose of the process is to determine ‘what is good for the child in this moment and forever.” 

Engagement and Trust Building
Critical to clinical mediation is the full engagement of all parties in the process. Engagement of each party is enhanced through first identifying the strengths of each of the parties and then the challenges that face each individuals and the families as a whole. When the process is successful, engagement supports the building of trust. The parties first often develop a sense of trust in the therapist who serves as mediator and then a sense of trust in one another. 

Education
Education is central to the clinical mediation process. The educational process focuses on the nature of adoption and the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties. Most importantly however, as emphasized by Michael Colberg, the educational process stresses that the work that is being done must ensure that “the child can value all components of herself – the parts of herself from her birth family and the parts of herself from her adoptive family.” To ensure that the child values all the parts that make up her being, there must be as Colberg underscores, an acknowledgement of “the gifts that each party has to give” – the role that each adult plays in contributing to the child’s sense of her own value. That role will vary, depending on the circumstances. A birth parent’s role, for example may be saying to the child “I love you” or may involve a more active, ongoing participation in the child’s life. 

Connections and Cooperation Between the Birth and Adoptive Families
As the clinical mediation process validates each party’s own contributions and role, the parties are likely to develop an appreciation of the contributions of others who are participating in the process. As Colberg notes, “people learn to value what each person can give – and not to be ashamed or judgmental of what they cannot give.” Connections and cooperation are likely to result as each person is able to recognize and acknowledge the unique gifts that each of the other individuals has to give to the child.

Connections and Cooperation Among the Professionals
Dr. Joyce Maguire-Pavao notes that connections and cooperation generally build among the families first and then the professionals who participate in clinical mediation – professionals who often include social workers, mental health professionals and lawyers. Clinical mediation encourages the professionals to recognize and value the contributions of other professionals, thereby providing a model for adoptive and birth family members. Clinical mediators point out, however, that there are special challenges in working with professionals in clinical mediation. Most mediators find that the challenge is particularly great with lawyers who, by virtue of their training and orientation, often attempt to obtain an immediate advantage for their clients. Clinical mediation works against this tendency by providing professionals with the opportunity to see that relationships among the child, the adoptive parents, birth parents, and extended family are long-term and that truly successful results promote life-long relationships. 

Achieving a Plan
At the conclusion of the clinical mediation process, the parties develop together a plan that will meet the child’s interests – that is promote her sense of self as a fully valued person. In a contested adoption case already in litigation, the plan must be approved by the judge. As Dr. Maguire-Pavao points out, however, judges generally like mediated agreements to which all parties sign on, and, as a result, are pleased to approve them.

Clinical Mediation and Openness
An issue that often arises in clinical mediation is the role of openness – ongoing contact between the birth family and the adoptive family – in achieving a mutually agreed upon plan. Clinical mediators urge caution in viewing openness as a way of promoting an agreement between parties who have unresolved differences. Dr. Pavao who warns that “we cannot mandate open adoption”, emphasizes that “open adoption can be successful only if based on trust and understanding.” As a result, she and other clinical mediators do not support the idea of forcing openness in a contested adoption in an attempt to settle the conflict. Similarly, clinical mediators express concerns about holding out openness to convince a birth parent to place her child for adoption. As Dr. Maguire-Pavao observes, “If openness is done only to obtain termination of parental rights, it will not work.” Consequently, while openness is often appropriate and is a feature of the agreements reached through clinical mediation, it should be seen as an outcome of the trust building and educational process, not the force that pushes the agreement forward.

Part II of this article will look more closely at the professionals who serve as clinical mediators, judges’ views of clinical mediation, and the issues likely to affect clinical mediation in the future.


CLINICAL MEDIATION: Preventing and Resolving Adoption Disputes—Part II

by Madelyn Freundlich, MSW, MPH, JD

[Part I of this series described clinical mediation, a process that, unlike the adversarial process of litigation, promotes mutual, child-centered decision-making and recognizes the value of all adults who care about the child. Part II describes the use of mediation in permanency planning for children in foster care, judges’ views of clinical mediation, and the characteristics of effective clinical mediators. It concludes with a discussion of how mediation may be used more extensively in the future to ensure that decision-making is based on the best interests of children.] 

Mediation and Permanency for Children in Foster Care
As in contested situations involving the birth and prospective adoptive parents of infants and very young children, mediation has proved to be an effective approach to facilitating cooperative planning for children in foster care. Mediation provides an opportunity to bring together parents whose children have entered foster care because of abuse and neglect and child welfare authorities who are responsible for planning for children in care. As Dr. Jeanne Etter, Director of Teamwork for Children in Eugene, Oregon, points out, permanency planning for children in foster care presents a range of challenges, and adoption as the plan for a child “arises by and large out of adversity. The painful social and personal conditions that make adoption necessary also make the parties to the adoption vulnerable. Ideally, the participants in any adoption will have their basic needs protected by the mediation process that also allows them to make choices that can work for the benefit of all.” In Dr. Etter’s mediation program, services are provided to families in which involuntary termination of parental rights is likely to be pursued. Through mediation, the program has successfully assisted birth families and prospective adoptive families to reach cooperative agreements through which the child has the benefits of an adoptive family, and birthparents have ongoing opportunities for contact with their children. Commenting on the benefits of mediation in these cases, Dr. Etter notes that, “The mediator guides the process into a constructive problem-solving mode and helps parties to frame their proposals, consider their options, and approach other parties in a constructive manner.”

Clinical mediation, often referred to as “permanency mediation” when used to promote planning for children in foster care, is likewise the emphasis of the Houston-based FAST FORWARD to Permanency program. Project Coordinator Angela Passaretti notes that, “with the use of therapeutic permanency mediation and skilled practitioners, families and professionals have the opportunity to transcend their fears for the benefit of the children and families involved.” Three cases demonstrate the benefits of mediation for these children and families.

In 1989, Mrs. D voluntarily placed Danny and Melissa with her aunt. Mrs. D recognized that she had a drug problem and could not adequately care for the two children. Although she had opportunities to have the children returned to her over the following five years, she did not agree to reunification, feeling that she was “not ready.” In 1995, the aunt stated that she could no longer be responsible for the children and Child Protective Services (CPS) placed the children with a foster family. Recognizing the length of time that the children and their mother had been separated, all parties—Mrs. D, CPS and the court—agreed that mediation should be utilized. The mediator noted that Mrs. D had many strengths: She had done all that CPS had asked her to do, although not always in a timely way; had been sober for several months; and had worked well with her therapist. However, she was not viewed favorably by CPS and her requests to visit her children had, in fact, been denied. Through mediation, Mrs. D became more actively involved in the planning process for her children. She met the children’s foster parents and, with the support of mediation, was permitted to visit the children for the first time in two years. Although there were initial misgivings on both sides, the foster parents and Mrs. D began to know and trust one another. Through visits with the children, Mrs. D realized that she “really wasn’t their mom” and, as she came to know the foster parents, she decided that “it wasn’t fair to deprive the children of this home.” Mrs. D voluntarily made the decision to allow her children to be adopted by their foster parents. She and the foster parents planned a picnic together at which time they jointly told the children of Mrs. D’s decision. In the agreement they developed through mediation, Mrs. D will continue to have contact with her children. As Angela Passaretti points out, Mrs. D was given “the opportunity to make a selfless decision. She had gotten it together and really wanted her children back—and could perhaps have succeeded in having them returned to her. She had, however, grown and matured through her recovery and was able to put her children’s interests first.” 

Mrs. L suffered from bipolar mental illness and was addicted to drugs. She voluntarily placed Jeremy with her cousin, although quite reluctantly. She repeatedly told CPS caseworkers and the mediator that she was the “black sheep” of the family and that her family could not be fully trusted. Her position was that, “I love my child…I have to have him…I don’t want my family to be involved.” However, she recognized that her condition was such that she could not on her own provide Jeremy with the care he needed. Through mediation, Mrs. L was able to see that family members did indeed care about her and Jeremy. As she worked with the mediator, she was able to make the decision to allow her sister, who lived several states away, to adopt Jeremy. Mrs. L and her sister agreed that Mrs. L would maintain contact with Jeremy long distance by telephone. Their relationship improved to the point that they eagerly planned to visit together on the sister’s next trip to Houston. In this case, as in all the others with which she has worked, Angela Passaretti emphasizes that in working cooperatively to make plans for children in foster care, “it does matter to birthparents that there is openness.”

Mr. S’s two children entered foster care in part because Mr. S was incarcerated. Throughout the children’s stay in care, Mr. S. wrote them letters and sent gifts. Because Mr. S was incarcerated at a considerable distance, the child welfare agency caseworkers did not have personal contact with him. At one point, the caseworkers discontinued delivery of his letters to his children because the content inappropriately referenced plans to be reunited. After attempts to reunite the children with their mother failed, the decision was made to pursue termination of parental rights and free the children for adoption. The case was referred for mediation, and the mediator recommended that Mr. S be given the opportunity to participate in mediation as she recognized his initiative in remaining in contact with his children. The mediator and Mr. S’s attorney met with Mr. S and he agreed to participate in mediation. Through mediation, Mr. S and the child welfare agency agreed that until the time that an adoptive family was identified for the children, Mr. S could continue to write the children regularly. The mediator also agreed that after a family was identified she would work with the adoptive family and Mr. S regarding some level of ongoing contact. At the final mediation session, Mr. S presented a letter to the mediator. It read, in part: 

“If you take a memory and handle it some, while years pass and you lose the urgency of youth, you can eventually find out what failed expectations mean. If you are blessed, they mean plenty. But despite disappointments, expectations and even appearances, as the cliche goes, are deceiving. Failure and success are sometimes the same thing. One can be mistaken for the other…. For making my failures into a success, Thank you.”

The FAST FORWARD to Permanency program offers mediation services in a range of cases:

• Those in which a conflictual relationship has developed between a birth family and CPS which is likely to affect their ability to work together cooperatively; 

• Cases in which the outcome, reunification with family or adoption, is not clear and options need to be fully explored; and

• Cases in which a birth parent, because of mental impairment or other factors, needs assistance in navigating the child welfare system.

Although the program has mediated several cases in which adoption is the plan for the child, Ms. Passaretti is quick to point out that the bulk of cases that her program is currently mediating involve returning children to their birth families. “Mediation provides a way of working out all the specifics regarding what families and the agency must do so that children can return home.”

Judges’ View of Mediation

Judges who have experience with mediation readily recognize its benefits. Superior Court Judge Graham T. Ross of New Jersey oversaw the mediated agreement in a case in which the adoptive family retained custody of the child but the birth father, with the adoptive family’s support, was awarded “significant parenting time.” Judge Ross highly endorses the use of mediation. Describing the mediated agreement in the case, he stated that, “It is the intent that this arrangement will bring finality to the proceedings and allow the child the benefit of all the parties’ love and affection.” Like clinical mediators involved in the process, Judge Ross emphasizes that mediation is valuable because it does not result in a “winner” or “loser” among the adults—it is “the child who is the beneficiary of such arrangements.” Similarly, Judge Mary Craft, a family court judge in Harris County, Texas, not only endorses mediation but led efforts to institute a mediation program to ensure that children in foster care in the county have the permanency of family. Through her leadership, FAST FORWARD to Permanency in Harris County has made significant contributions in moving forward plans for children whose cases were ‘stuck’ in the foster care system. Judge Craft, who emphasizes the positive outcomes that mediation makes possible for children and families, also points to the benefits that mediation brings in terms of its “potential for huge savings …[in] court expenses, foster care, Medicaid, counseling, and all other services given when children remain in state custody.”

Clinical Mediators

Successful clinical mediation hinges on the experience and skills of the mediator. Those with rich backgrounds in clinical mediation emphasize that mediators working in the areas of permanency planning and adoption should be:

• Mental health or child welfare professionals skilled in working with family systems;

• Experienced in mediation with a clear understanding that decision-making is child-centered; 

• Sensitive to permanency planning and adoption issues with training in and an understanding of the lifetime aspects of adoption;

• Clinically skilled in working with adoption agencies and the legal system, with an understanding of the law and the rights of each party; and

• Compassionate, trustworthy, and authentic individuals with an affinity for clinical work with families and children touched by adoption.

Those who are knowledgeable about clinical mediation believe that most problems associated with mediation spring from two sources. First, problems arise when mediators do not have sufficient training in adoption and child welfare issues, family systems, family law, and the mediation process. Second, problems arise when participating professionals—social workers and lawyers—fail to understand the mediation process and/or attempt to compete professionally with the mediator. Even when a highly-skilled mediator is involved, success in mediation may be elusive if social work and legal professionals are not prepared to support the process and the agreements that are reached. 

Clinical Mediation in the Future

The use of clinical mediation is likely to continue to expand. Increasingly, there is a recognition that the process of clinical mediation brings important benefits that do not flow from litigation or other adversarial processes. Unlike litigation—with its focus on resolving disputes over the ‘rights’ of adults—mediation moves all concerned parties toward a common, child-centered goal. As stated by Dr. Joyce Maguire Pavao, Director of the Center for Family Connections of Cambridge, MA, mediation “takes property law and adversarial issues out of adoption” and focuses instead on mutually shared concerns about the child’s interests and needs. Mediation strengthens the decision-making process by assembling together all players who are concerned about the child—birthparents, adoptive parents, extended family members who care about the child, and professionals who have some level of responsibility for the child’s well-being. Each person has the opportunity to determine his/her own role and responsibilities, define his/her own unique contributions to the child’s current and future well-being, and recognize the unique contributions of others. Mediation also recognizes that planning for children is a process, not an event. Jim Whitehead, Executive Director of Spaulding for Children, Houston, Texas, emphasizes that mediation provides a way of addressing the ongoing issues that arise in relationships among birth families, adoptive families and children. “Things change. What may seem unacceptable at one point may seem reasonable later as the parties get to know one another and trust is built.”

Cases involving the adoption of infants and very young children as well as children in foster care demonstrate the direct benefit of mediation to children and adults. Through mediation, birth parents are able to identify, and have validated by the adoptive family and professionals, the gifts that they can give their child. Adoptive parents receive permission to parent the child directly from the birthparents and emerge with an authentic ‘right’ to parent the child. The child understands that all parts of herself are valued—both the genetic and environmental aspects of her life are treasured by those who love her. As Michael Colberg of the Center for Family Connections states, “The child is able to make sense of who she is and how she came to be here, and to value all of the pieces that make up her being—all of her heritages.”

Despite the benefits of clinical mediation, it is likely that as the process becomes better known, questions will arise regarding its use. A key issue may be the cost effectiveness of clinical mediation. Those most familiar with clinical mediation urge that the cost of the service be viewed in relation to its benefits in two areas: Prevention and achievement of longer term positive outcomes. With regard to prevention, they point out that mediation provides a viable alternative to protracted and expensive litigation. The financial investment in mediation services is a fraction of the cost associated with court time and attorneys’ fees and the emotional trauma of ongoing litigation. In terms of positive long-term outcomes, they emphasize that mediation, first and foremost, supports each child in achieving a positive self-concept which, in turn, enhances the child’s prospects for a happy and productive adulthood. Second, by engaging all concerned parties in planning for the child and anticipating future issues and concerns, it helps to avert the types of problems that can result in adoption disruption, a costly outcome in both emotional and financial terms. 

Cost concerns also may lead to the use of mediation services on a short-term basis to reach an agreement and nothing more. Clinical mediators express concerns about this view of mediation, noting that the most successful uses of mediation have been grounded on a recognition that events are likely to occur in the future that will impact the agreed-upon plan and the trust building that has taken place in the mediation process. As circumstances, needs, and interests change over the life-long relationships created by adoption, families may need to return to mediation to reconsider the plans that have been developed and work through relationship issues that arise. An overly-restrictive view of mediation as an effort simply to reach an agreement undermines the ongoing benefit that mediation can bring to children and families.

Conclusion

Clinical mediation is an approach that places the child at the center of decision-making and respects the roles and responsibilities of all the adults concerned about the child—birthparents, adoptive parents, extended family members, and professionals. Its value has been seen in contested adoption cases, situations in which birth and adoptive families are struggling to develop and maintain relationships that will benefit the child, and child protective service cases in which children need permanency through reunification with their birth families or adoption. It is a process that needs to be more fully understood and appreciated so that its benefits can become more readily available to children and families for whom crucial decisions need to be made.

As published in The American Adoption Congress Newsletter “ The Decree” – Summer and Fall 1998 Issues