Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Last week I trained as Cinergy Conflict Coach with LEADR. I'm very impressed I loved the course...the trainers Lynora Brooke and Susie Whillas were terrific...I think it will be a fantastic tool to add to my Dispute Management services...it's not counselling...which I definately don't want to do...yet it is a process that enables the parties or party to gain great insight and clarity...which in turn will enable them to achieve their goals for their personal and business relationships...
Whilst I'm building my hours with this model I'll be offering the first telephone session free for prospective clients....contact me if you are interested..
Whilst I'm building my hours with this model I'll be offering the first telephone session free for prospective clients....contact me if you are interested..
Thursday, May 27, 2010
It's been a busy few weeks. I've attended some very interesting seminars/workshops on Holistic Mediation at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies...Conflict Coaching at the Conflict Coaching Network...a talk by Michael Kirby and viewing of his short film..."Don't Forget the Justice Bit" ...and most recently, last night a workshop facilitated by Hilary Astor in relation to the latest research on Domestic Violence. We had a lively and interesting discussion on what can and/or should be done to assist clients in the Family Law system who experience domestic violence.
Of course the recent announcements made by the Attorney General, Robert McClelland in relation to FDRP's taking on advisory and determinative roles and mandatory FDR for property and spousal matters was also mentioned briefly.
Generally practitioners seem fearful and against changes along these lines...especially FDRP's having a determinative role in family dispute resolution...I don't have quite the same view if it is the parties choice to go along those lines and of course the practitioner is suitably experienced and qualified to play a determinative role and appropriately compensated with immunity then I can see this may be more suitable option and how parties may prefer this option to going to Court if it were available to them.
It is the advisory role that I have more concerns with. It is my understanding that some practitioners in private practice offer this "conciliation" model already. That is clients come to them for family mediation if they can't resolve their issues the mediator (who is also a lawyer but not representing either of the parties) advises the parties what he/she thinks they should do. The advice isn't binding on the parties.
My view is that any FDRP who is playing more than a facilitative role needs to have complete immunity and also be fairly compensated for the work they are doing. They also need to be experienced. One FDRP who I am aware does advisory work charges $450 per hour for his services. He is also very experienced and competent to be doing advisory work.
FDRP's at Family Relationship Centres and other agencies typically get paid $30 per hour. (just by way of comparison teenage babysitters are often paid $20 per hour and a massage therapist $60 to $100 per hour).
In my view practitioners are already being exploited given the qualifications and experience they must have and the difficulty and complexity of their role. In addition to this the changes in Australia have been happening so rapidly that many of the FDRP staff in the FRC's and other agencies have little experience (less than 4 years practicing full time FDR and often less than 2 years) and inadequate support. Additionally due to the demands on the FRC's and funding limits many FDRP's are practicing a sole mediation model from the outset which is more likely to lead to less than best pratice than a co-mediation model. This is not a criticism just a reality. They need time and money to assist their practitioners to develop, learn their trade and learn how to manage the demands of practice without being burnt out in their first few years.
I don't think as some do that the introduction of advisory or determinative methods of dispute resolution destroys the basis of and purpose of facilitative mediation as we know it. I believe it opens up the choices for parties who are involved in the family law system.
In Australia we are already light years away from a true facilitative model in that in most places such as the major family service providers, family relationships centres and legal aid commissions the model of mediation practiced is very much an interest based problem solving model with little time for party empowerment and transformation. Some agencies are able to spend more time with clients than others. The FRC's are able to offer clients other services, such as educational workshops and counselling but when it comes down to it the mediation model being practiced is the problem solving model which is arguably the least empowering and self-determinative model for the parties. So the inclusion of other models of dispute resolution is not as far away from current practice as some practitioners suggest.
It is however a long way from the models of narrative and transformative mediation, non-violent communication mediation and restorative justice principles all of which have a much stronger focus on improving long term outcomes for parties as opposed to short term problem solving solutions.
The thoughts expressed in this blog a purely the opinion of Michelle de Vries and are not representative of any other agency or person mentioned in the blog or otherwise.
Of course the recent announcements made by the Attorney General, Robert McClelland in relation to FDRP's taking on advisory and determinative roles and mandatory FDR for property and spousal matters was also mentioned briefly.
Generally practitioners seem fearful and against changes along these lines...especially FDRP's having a determinative role in family dispute resolution...I don't have quite the same view if it is the parties choice to go along those lines and of course the practitioner is suitably experienced and qualified to play a determinative role and appropriately compensated with immunity then I can see this may be more suitable option and how parties may prefer this option to going to Court if it were available to them.
It is the advisory role that I have more concerns with. It is my understanding that some practitioners in private practice offer this "conciliation" model already. That is clients come to them for family mediation if they can't resolve their issues the mediator (who is also a lawyer but not representing either of the parties) advises the parties what he/she thinks they should do. The advice isn't binding on the parties.
My view is that any FDRP who is playing more than a facilitative role needs to have complete immunity and also be fairly compensated for the work they are doing. They also need to be experienced. One FDRP who I am aware does advisory work charges $450 per hour for his services. He is also very experienced and competent to be doing advisory work.
FDRP's at Family Relationship Centres and other agencies typically get paid $30 per hour. (just by way of comparison teenage babysitters are often paid $20 per hour and a massage therapist $60 to $100 per hour).
In my view practitioners are already being exploited given the qualifications and experience they must have and the difficulty and complexity of their role. In addition to this the changes in Australia have been happening so rapidly that many of the FDRP staff in the FRC's and other agencies have little experience (less than 4 years practicing full time FDR and often less than 2 years) and inadequate support. Additionally due to the demands on the FRC's and funding limits many FDRP's are practicing a sole mediation model from the outset which is more likely to lead to less than best pratice than a co-mediation model. This is not a criticism just a reality. They need time and money to assist their practitioners to develop, learn their trade and learn how to manage the demands of practice without being burnt out in their first few years.
I don't think as some do that the introduction of advisory or determinative methods of dispute resolution destroys the basis of and purpose of facilitative mediation as we know it. I believe it opens up the choices for parties who are involved in the family law system.
In Australia we are already light years away from a true facilitative model in that in most places such as the major family service providers, family relationships centres and legal aid commissions the model of mediation practiced is very much an interest based problem solving model with little time for party empowerment and transformation. Some agencies are able to spend more time with clients than others. The FRC's are able to offer clients other services, such as educational workshops and counselling but when it comes down to it the mediation model being practiced is the problem solving model which is arguably the least empowering and self-determinative model for the parties. So the inclusion of other models of dispute resolution is not as far away from current practice as some practitioners suggest.
It is however a long way from the models of narrative and transformative mediation, non-violent communication mediation and restorative justice principles all of which have a much stronger focus on improving long term outcomes for parties as opposed to short term problem solving solutions.
The thoughts expressed in this blog a purely the opinion of Michelle de Vries and are not representative of any other agency or person mentioned in the blog or otherwise.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
