“Exclusion can create division. Active participation increases the likelihood of finding solutions in unity.”
I re-read this several times; simple sentences, but so much in them!
The Nobel Peace Centre lists what makes an inclusive process. The ones I felt particularly pertinent for family mediation were:
• Invite all relevant parties.
• Ask the questions: Who needs to talk to whom about what, where and when.
• Ensure a transparent and open process.
• Sometimes someone refuses to join a dialogue. Respect that is their right.
There is a requirement[1] that a mediator invites both potential participants to a MIAM unless either of the exceptions set out in the Standards applies (which are (i) do not have contact details or (ii) in the professional judgement of the mediator it is not safe or otherwise appropriate to do so).
How do I manage this in my mediation practice? I seek information and give participants options. I won’t routinely contact both parties from the outset unless I have been given the green light to do so. I will make sure during my MIAM with the first person they understand the importance of the second person having the same opportunity of information and signposting (and what could potentially go wrong later down the line if the second person says, “I was never invited to mediate…”)
Next – thinking about who are all the relevant invitees? It might seem obvious – the separating couple themselves. But it’s often wider than that. What about their children? They have a right to have their voice heard. Thinking wider and being creative, I’ve had other family members present too – either when they are involved in the dispute or the holders of info, e.g. Mum and Dad when their (adult) daughter and her partner lived on their farm but daughter had zero idea about the house and land ownership situation. What about help from other professionals and/ or therapeutic support? These definitely come within the definition of inviting all relevant parties. Example; if there is a family company and the person who has all the financial information at their fingertips is the accountant, then it would make sense to include them. Build the team – share information – be collaborative.
The third Nobel Peace Centre suggestion made me think that sometimes it’s not so much about being included, but rather feeling included. Mediators are impartial. I try to make sure my practice and processes are as transparent as possible. Some clients struggle when the recommendation to me/mediation comes from one person’s lawyer, or friend, work colleague… I know it doesn’t make any difference to impartiality, inclusion or outcome but if a client is feeling anxious and vulnerable anyway this could add to their concerns. Typically, humans are suspicious when we don’t know something; gaps in knowledge tend to be filled with negative narratives, increasing the sense of exclusion.
And finally, the last Nobel Peace Centre point resonated with me. Someone apparently refusing or ignoring mediation can be worth exploring a little deeper. Sometimes it’s not a no, but a ‘not yet’. Timing can be everything. It is not uncommon for me to meet someone for a MIAM, we reach a conclusion that mediation isn’t suitable at the present time, but they come back months or years later. When they have moved forwards, got support etc. When they feel ready to be included as a party at the negotiation table.
“The solution to any conflict, at any scale, is to sit down and talk”
Image courtesy of Priscilla Du Preez via Unsplash
[1] FMC Manual Professional Standards and Self-Regulatory Framework August 2025 v1.6
From the book Those Who Listen, Change the World – The Little Book on Dialogue from the Nobel Peace Center
