Skip to main content
SIGN UP

Family Mediation Week 2025 – In conversation with The Mediation Space

Share

Family Mediation Week, taking place from 27 to 31 January 2025, seeks to raise awareness of the benefits of mediation for family law practitioners, promoting amicable solutions to otherwise contentious family issues.

To round off an informative Family Mediation Week, the Winckworth Sherwood Family Team had the pleasure of speaking with Naomi Goode (Left picture), a psychotherapist and former lawyer, and Rachel Chisholm (Middle picture), a family law barrister and Resolution-trained mediator to find out more about their work with The Mediation Space.

 

The pair gave a useful insight into their approach to mediation, and the benefits of having both psychotherapy and legal training to inform mediation sessions. This interview will hopefully provide  some practical information on what mediation is like, and the breadth of issues it can help resolve.

WS: What is the Mediation Space and what makes it different to other mediation providers?

RC: At the Mediation Space, we combine expertise in family law, mediation, and psychotherapy. After years as a family barrister, I realised that the obstacles to agreements are often emotional factors in the relationship, not the issue itself. Divorce can be a time of crisis, making rational decisions difficult. In our mediation sessions, we address both the facts and the emotions to help clients understand their situation, improve communication, and find sustainable solutions.

NG: Divorce is emotionally and psychologically draining, and we have found that having a psychotherapist present during mediation can be highly beneficial to clients. I help identify unconscious dynamics that may hinder progress, focusing on the emotional aspects to ease the burden, so clients can concentrate on finding a solution to their dispute.

WS: Agreed, it can so often be those emotional barriers that get in the way of finding a sensible solution. For couples using the Mediation Space, what does the mediation process look like?

RC:  When people contact us, we arrange a brief introductory call to answer any questions about the process. Once they have confirmed they want to proceed, we send a preliminary information form that includes details on childhood history, support systems, relationships, and any therapy they have had in the past.

NG: Our intake process then involves two appointments: one with a psychotherapist, like me, and one with a mediator, like Rachel. Afterward, Rachel and I will meet to assess whether mediation is suitable for the parties and if a psychotherapist should be present in the first session. Some clients may only want a psychotherapist for the initial meeting, focusing on financial matters afterward, while others prefer my presence in every session.

RC: Then the sessions will continue until a resolution is found, and written memorandum of understanding will be written up by me as the mediator, or it becomes apparent that mediation is no longer suitable for the parties. If discussing financial remedies, the memorandum is then taken to the solicitors to draw up into a consent order to be filed at court. If it is to do with child arrangements, we will formalise a parenting plan for the couple to follow.

WS: People often think mediators are there to give them all the answers to their disputes, when your role tends to be more facilitative. To what extent do legal and psychotherapy principles help you facilitate the mediation?

RC: I provide information on the law and how they can reach an order that will be approved by the court, and share insights from similar situations. Sometimes, clients have not considered options like offering capital from the house, instead of sharing a pension. My role is to explore different solutions and help clients think through their options. I often ask clients to think of every possible solution, even if it seems crazy, as the outcome they would achieve is they went to court is somewhere within those suggestions. It is then just a question of finding the right one for those people.

NG: As a psychotherapist, I can identify personality traits that may hinder couples’ ability to mediate. Narcissistic or primitive traits can make it harder to see the other person’s perspective, while those with neurodiverse traits may struggle with rigid thinking. Recognising these traits helps me, and usually the person they are mediating with, better understand how to reach a resolution.

WS: Speaking of misconceptions about the mediator’s role, what, in your respective experiences, do you think is the biggest misconception about mediation?

RC: People often go into it thinking its going to just be an easy conversation, that there are only a few things to discuss and then it will all be sorted. In reality, it is the dynamic between the parties that needs to be addressed, rather than just the specific disputes they are facing.

NG: For me, most people seem to think that mediation is a bit of a ‘soft touch’ alternative to the court. But intrinsically with mediation, you have to have hard conversations. You need to come in ready to compromise, which can be hard at the best of times let alone with an ex-partner.

WS: Many people seem to think mediation is also just for divorcing couples with financial disputes. Is it just separating couples that can mediate, or can it be used for broader familial disputes?

NG: Mediation can assist in various family cases, including married, unmarried, and same-sex couples. But we can only really mediate on issues that could go to court. Some family relationship issues, like a mother and son’s strained relationship, are more suited for therapy. Whereas legal matters, such as grandparents’ rights to see grandchildren or the exercise of parental responsibility, can be addressed in mediation.

RC: There needs to be an aim for the mediation, such as a dispute to resolve, otherwise there is not much need for a mediator. There may be some general personality clashes or unhealthy family dynamics, where therapy would be more helpful.

WS: You have probably seen a broad range of family dynamics through your work. Can mediation be effective when there is a vast power imbalance in the couple’s dynamic, and if so, what challenges arise?

NG: The golden rule is that usually where there is a significant power imbalance, then mediation will not be successful. But with the right support in the mediation session, such as with hybrid mediation (where the solicitors are there too) or where there is a psychotherapist present, the imbalance can be identified and dealt with in certain cases to allow for the mediation to continue. If there are concerns about abuse between the couple, it is usually the same answer that mediation would not be appropriate. However, it is important to note that abuse could still persist in court or through alternative means of non-court dispute resolution, where one party with more resources may still benefit from the imbalance, so sometimes mediation might be the ‘least worst’ option.

RC: Through my experience as a barrister, I am able to see the usual signs that there is a significant power imbalance or there is financial abuse going on. When I see these signs I call them out and bring the process to an end if it cannot continue in a safe way. This follows through to the agreements people reach as I cannot sign off on agreements that are manifestly unfair or unlikely to be approved by a court. I agree that in couples where there is a vast power imbalance, mediation is unlikely to continue, but my background does go some way in protecting against certain power imbalances being proliferated through mediation.

WS: The last year has seen some great progress in the mediation sphere. Notably, with the amendments to the Family Procedure Rules which empower judges to impose costs (or adjourn proceedings) to those who do not consider out of court resolutions before issuing proceedings and throughout their case. What are your views on how the space has changed and do you think the changes go far enough?

RC: I think it is great that people can find out about the options of ways to avoid court through the  Mediation Information Assessment Meetings (MIAM) process. But it seems disingenuous as most of the time the options are private, and therefore more expensive and not available to everyone. That being said, I think that making people explore non-court dispute resolution is very important and would-be litigants need to be exposed to mediation as an option. However, my caveats around promoting mediation as the default is that it is not always suitable for everyone, and we must be mindful of pressuring people into something that may not be right for them. Each instance should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with all the options considered.

WS: Of those options, what is your view on the most effective way of reaching an out of court settlement?

RC: I think Early Neutral Evaluations leading into mediation have often been very successful, with a mediator present during the evaluation. This provides a neutral perspective and helps clarify likely outcomes, especially when there are issues of principle. It is a cost-effective and safe way to address power imbalances with good advice. My concern with the current system is for those who fall into the gap where mediation alone is not enough but who cannot afford arbitration or private FDRs. There needs to be support for these individuals.

Winckworth Sherwood would like to warmly thank Naomi Goode and Rachel Chisholm for making the time for this interview and providing us with their insight into mediation.

If you had any questions about any of the points raised in this interview, you can contact the Family Team at Winckworth Sherwood who would be delighted to assist. If you wanted to find out more about The Mediation Space, you can contact them via their website.

Share this article