BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

This report describes the findings from a study of 79 mediation sessions tape‐recorded at five sites in England: three independent agencies and two probation services. Mediators were found to have extensive power to influence both process and outcome, although this is restrained by the need to depict their role as formally neutral. This power is used both positively to encourage some options and negatively to discourage others. The content of settlements is not controlled exclusively by the parties. References to children's interests seem to be rarer than might be expected. They appear to arise more as a means of sanctioning parents than as a way of focusing discussion on what would be best for their children. There are few differences between the behavior of probation officers holding joint interviews with couples in the course of preparing a welfare report and the behavior of mediators working for independent agencies. Those that do occur seem to be more related to local contingencies than to some fundamental difference between court‐associated and independent work. While co‐working sometimes achieves the benefits claimed by its proponents, especially in the provision of additional insights into disputants' problems, it brings greater risks of unacceptable pressure from the concerted action of two mediators. This report does not undermine the case for seeing mediation as a useful addition to the means by which people may choose to arrange their divorces. However, it does argue that there is a need for clients to be given much clearer information about exactly what they should expect and to have a freer and more informed choice about whether or not to participate. It also underlines the need for mediators to have adequate training, especially in understanding the practical implications of divorce, and to be made properly accountable.