Voice Is Not Enough: Co-Creating the Future of Child-Inclusive Mediation

Rachel Birnbaum and Nicholas Bala’s recent discussion paper, Shaping the Future of Child-Inclusive Mediation in Canada, is an important contribution to the ongoing evolution of family mediation practice in Canada.

The paper provides a thoughtful overview of the research supporting child-inclusive mediation and reaffirms the principle that children should have opportunities to participate in decisions that affect their lives. As the authors note:

“The objective of child-inclusive mediation is not to have children making decisions but adding their input to the decision-making process. The research demonstrates that when children are consulted and included, they have better outcomes.”

Yet despite growing awareness of the benefits, implementation remains uneven. The paper notes that only about one-third of Ontario family mediators report involving children directly in their practice.

Birnbaum and Bala make several recommendations to address this gap, including the development of national policies, standards, and training relating to child-inclusive mediation. They also recommend the creation of an advisory group to assist Family Mediation Canada in this work.

I fully support these recommendations. And I would add one more suggestion.

If we are creating policies and standards about children’s participation, children and youth should participate in creating them – in a meaningful way. Not as symbolic members of a committee. They interpret that as “tokenism”. Not as an afterthought once a draft has been completed. Rather, as meaningful partners in the design process.

In our work with young people through the Family Justice Innovation Lab and the Transform the Family Justice System Collaborative, many young people have expressed frustration at being invited to consultation sessions but being asked to take notes or having only one young person in a room full of professionals discussing policies directly affecting children and youth.

This idea is not revolutionary. Across Canada and internationally, governments, researchers, educators, and community organizations are increasingly involving children and youth in the development of policies, programs, legislation, and services that affect them. Those with lived experience often have insights that professionals cannot provide on their own.

The same principle applies to policies and legislation governing the field of mediation.

Children and young people are uniquely positioned to tell us what helps them feel safe, respected, informed, and heard. They can identify barriers that adults may overlook. They can point out language that feels confusing or intimidating. They can help us understand the difference between participation that feels meaningful and participation that feels performative. Young people also tell me that participating in this way also supports their well-being and reassures them they are not alone.

The challenge, of course, is that meaningful participation is more complicated than simply asking for opinions.

In my last Slaw post I discussed the Lundy Model of participation, which was developed as a practical framework for implementing Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The model reminds us that participation involves more than voice. It requires four elements: space, voice, audience, and influence.

Children need safe opportunities to express their views. They need support to communicate those views. Decision-makers must genuinely listen. And perhaps most importantly, children need to understand how their views were considered and what impact they had on the outcome.

I believe that this framework is just as relevant to policy development as it is to individual family disputes.

I will bet that Family Mediation Canada has already considered this reminder. If it establishes an advisory group to develop standards for child-inclusive mediation, the Lundy Model offers a useful roadmap. Young people could be involved from the outset rather than consulted only after decisions have largely been made. Draft policies and training materials could be reviewed by youth participants. Feedback could be actively sought and incorporated. Most importantly, those young participants could be informed about how their contributions shaped the final product.

In other words, the process used to create the standards could reflect the same participation principles that the standards seek to promote.

Other mediation organizations could do the same. Also, the implications extend beyond family mediation. Similar questions arise in parenting coordination, child protection mediation, foster care planning, and other out-of-court dispute resolution processes involving children and youth. Wherever professionals are designing systems intended to serve children, there is value in asking whether children themselves have been invited into the conversation.

If we believe that children’s voices matter in decisions affecting their lives, it seems reasonable that they should also have a role in shaping the policies, standards, and training that govern how those voices are heard.