New Law Reform Report: The role of Restorative Justice in responding to sexual violence. A focus on First Nations women

Posted on by
Reply

By Lavanya de Mel

This post is part of a series of the best blog posts written by undergraduate law students enrolled in 2024 in Non-Adversarial Justice at Monash Law.

The criminal justice system often leaves victim-survivors feeling that they themselves are on trial, paving the way for Restorative Justice (‘RJ’) to emerge as a compelling alternative. However, is RJ suitable for responding to sexual violence? More importantly, does it resonate with the experiences of First Nations women, who are significantly overrepresented in sexual violence statistics?

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) yesterday released its report, Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, recommending use of RJ in some sexual violence matters. In particular, the ALRC recommends funding for First Nations communities to design, build, and deliver accredited restorative justice programs for First Nations people (recommendation 63).

This blog post explores the extent to which RJ can effectively respond to sexual violence, and how it can be implemented to respect First Nations women’s experiences. We hope the ALRC’s proposals lead to prioritising First Nations voices in discussions around RJ as a response to sexual violence.

– “June Oscar signing” by AusHumanRights, used under CC BY 2.0

Due to the limited availability of direct testimonies, this post primarily draws on general perspectives of First Nations women gathered from reports by First Nations organisations and the Wiyi Yani U Thangani (‘Women’s Voices’) project.

The need for an alternative justice response

First Nations women experience sexual violence at a rate approximately three times higher than non-Indigenous women. This alarming statistic both stems from and perpetuates the ongoing negative impacts of colonisation, which have resulted in increased socioeconomic disadvantage and intergenerational trauma.

The criminal justice system often compounds this issue, by failing to provide an adequate response to First Nations women. A staggering 90% of violence goes unreported due to a fundamental fear of the police, compounded by police inaction and discriminatory decision-making. First Nations women describe their interactions with the justice system as having exacerbated the impacts of violence and worsened their trauma. Research shows that typical ‘Western’ responses to sexual violence, including the current criminal justice response, are often ineffective for First Nations communities.

The question then becomes whether alternative forms of justice, such as RJ, can provide a better response to sexual violence.

What is RJ and how can it respond to sexual violence?

RJ is multifaceted concept, sometimes perceived as confusing and incoherent. The Australian Law Reform Commission defines RJ is a ‘victim-centred, party-led process’ focused on identifying and addressing the harm caused by the offence and exploring options for repairing that harm’. Unlike the criminal justice system, which prioritises punishing the offender, RJ is designed to address the victim-survivor’s needs and experiences. It typically involves a voluntary and confidential dialogue between the victim-survivor and personal responsible.

The use of RJ in cases of sexual violence has sparked debate. Proponents argue that RJ can meet the complex needs of victim-survivors in ways the criminal justice system often cannot. For instance, victim-survivors often need to tell their story in their own words, have their story believed, and ask the person responsible any unresolved questions, and see them take accountability. RJ can provide a platform for these needs to be met.

However, critics are concerned that RJ risks re-privatising and decriminalising sexual violence. It may be seen as a ‘soft’ approach that diminishes the seriousness of sexual violence. Given that persons responsible often abuse the trust of victim-survivors, there are concerns that they might exploit their position of relative power in the RJ process and further harm victim-survivors. Additionally, RJ processes might not be culturally appropriate for some participants and might face challenges with linguistically diverse individuals.

Conclusively determining the effectiveness of RJ as a response to sexual violence is difficult due to the limited number of peer-reviewed studies. However, the risks of RJ are real and should be managed through a well-designed principle-based approach.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended the following principles to address some of these challenges:

  1. Voluntary participation: Participants join voluntarily and can leave at any point.
  2. Accountability: The person responsible must be truthful and admit to their actions. 
  3. Prioritising victim-survivors: RJ processes should prioritise the victim survivor’s needs and interests.
  4. Safety and respect: RJ processes should adapt to different needs, with power imbalances addressed and skilled experts in sexual violence involved.
  5. Confidentiality: What happens during RJ remains strictly confidential.
  6. Transparency: Anonymised data is used to continually improve RJ processes.
  7. Integrated justice response: RJ processes should work alongside the criminal justice system and therapeutic services.
  8. Clear governance: Legislation should empower and oversee RJ.

Adopting a RJ model based on these principles shows promising potential for dealing effectively with sexual violence. The question then, is how might it be successfully implemented for First Nations women?

RJ and First Nations women: a potential solution

Research in the context of family violence indicates that First Nations women tend to favour RJ more than non-First Nations women. This preference is linked to their perception of the criminal justice system as oppressive and contributing to the violence against them. First Nations women interviewed by Heather Nancarrow expressed optimism that RJ processes could empower them. They believed that involving their families and broader community in RJ would lead to successful outcomes. A practical model for this might involve Elders and respected members of First Nations communities on an expert panel that conveners in the RJ conference could consult with.

Implementing RJ in a way that allows victim-survivors to share their story in a culturally appropriate and safe setting, would likely facilitate more effective healing and validate their experiences. First Nations victim-survivors have long understood that they ‘have the answers to confront what is wrong and to create what is right’.

By offering opportunities for self-determination that respect cultural values, RJ might help First Nations women feel empowered, and lead to more meaningful resolutions to sexual violence.

RJ and First Nations women: challenges and concerns

Despite these potential benefits, the application of RJ must carefully navigate concerns raised by First Nations women. There are significant fears that RJ processes could inadvertently perpetuate harm rather than heal it. Some women fear that RJ, if not carefully managed, might become a vehicle for reinforcing power imbalances within their communities or become another ‘white justice model’ that doesn’t fully respect or address their needs.

There are also concerns about how RJ might be received within their communities. Concerns include the potential for male leaders or community members to misuse the RJ process to their advantage, or for cultural arguments to be employed in ways that undermine victim-survivors’ needs.

For RJ processes to be an effective response to sexual violence, it is crucial to design them with these risks in mind and establish strong safeguards.

What needs to be done?

To effectively implement RJ for First Nations women, a collaborative design process involving meaningful engagement with their lived experiences is vital. Many First Nations organisations, such as Djirra, stress that any RJ model must be co-designed with First Nations women to ensure it is sufficiently sensitive to their needs and does not become another mechanism of oppression. It is necessary to hear from First Nations women directly to identify the wellbeing, safety, procedural and privacy aspects they might need for an RJ model to work.

Ultimately, the potential benefits of RJ as a response to sexual violence appear to outweigh the challenges, provided a principle-based approach is implemented to address the risks. RJ offers a promising alternative to the criminal justice system for addressing sexual violence against First Nations women. Its success, however, depends on the active participation of families and communities as well as the establishment of a culturally safe environment. Through a collaborative design process, RJ has the potential to be a powerful response to sexual violence that aligns with the experiences of First Nations women.

ChatGPT (version 4.0) was used to check grammatical errors and suggest improvements in writing style in this blog post.

About Lavanya de Mel

Lavanya is a final-year law student at Monash University, minoring in Economics and Business Strategy. She is passionate about improving access to justice for culturally diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Later this year, she will begin her legal career as a graduate lawyer at a commercial law firm, where she hopes to explore the role of alternative dispute resolution in a commercial context.

The Lawyer-Assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial vs The Priority Property Pool: Which Should You Choose?

Posted on by
Reply

By Amy Li

This post is part of a series of the best posts written by undergraduate law students enrolled in 2024 in Non-adversarial Justice at Monash University.

Victims of abusive relationships are at a higher risk of being financially disadvantaged and at poverty after separation. They are more likely to accept unfair property settlements and are three times more likely to receive less than 40% of the property pool. Parties who perpetrate abuse can continue to abuse them through the legal system, by delaying legal procedures, sending unnecessary legal letters, deliberately increasing their legal fees and causing the victim to be the subject of harsh cross-examinations. Due to little funding in Legal Aid, only 8% of Australian households are eligible to access a grant to receive legal aid.

Image by <a href=”http://<a href=”https://www.vecteezy.com/free-photos/business”>Business Stock photos by VecteezyArrmypicca

Due to these issues, the Lawyer-Assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial and Priority Property Pools were recently established and aimed to increase access to resolving post-separation property matters through efficient and low-cost avenues aimed at parties experiencing family violence and economic abuse.

This article aims to provide a comparative analysis of the evaluation of the Lawyer-Assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial (the LAC Trial) and the Priority Property Pools under $500,000 (PPP500) pilot programs. This post is designed to be especially useful for women who are experiencing ongoing severe financial hardship as a result of family violence and are seeking a family law property settlement in the State of Victoria, Australia, where the author is based.

The LAC Trial

The LAC Trial was initially established in 2020 and was funded to be a two-year trial. It provides legally assisted mediation for dividing property where net assets are $500,000 or less (excluding superannuation). The applicant must also be a priority client of the Family Dispute Resolution Service, a Legal Aid service designed to organise family dispute resolution conferences between parties at no cost (excluding the cost of legal representation). Priority clients includes people who have experienced, or is at risk of experiencing family violence.

If the application is successful, the applicant will be appointed a lawyer who will make an application on behalf of the client. A case manager can also provide the applicant with referrals to family violence support services and provide alternative solutions if mediation is deemed inappropriate. In Victoria, financial disclosure must be required before the first conference, which is intended to make the process more efficient. If resolved, parties are encouraged to sign a Heads of Agreement and lawyers apply for consent orders.

This program allows more women experiencing financial hardship to access legal representation for a property settlement. The more intensive case management is helpful for vulnerable parties as they are able to work with non-legal professionals to get the support and advice needed. The legal representation can level out the playing field for a victim who has a lack of bargaining power in private negotiations. Participants are also less likely to agree to a minority settlement as they receive constant advice from their lawyers and have a realistic proposal in mind. Where a party has experienced extensive family violence, mediation can be held between lawyers on behalf of the parties privately. The outcome is legally binding which allows victims to ‘move on’ and have separate finances without a connection. The fact that Legal Aid is involved removes another aspect of systems abuse, as Legal Aid can fund to obtain certain forms of financial disclosure for the vulnerable parties and avoid obstructive behaviour from the aggravating party.

However, the primary reason why this option may not be suitable for some clients experiencing financial hardship is that mediation requires cooperation from the other party. If the case manager does not receive a response from other party or they decline to participate, the matter is closed. The requirement of needing financial disclosure before the first mediation could also backfire for victims of abuse. This is because victims experiencing family violence may have limited access to financial information as well as the necessary documentation. Furthermore, during the pilot program, some legal professionals observed that parties who had a history of perpetrating family violence were likely to be obstructive in their financial disclosure. These parties would ‘drag their feet’ and be very slow with their paperwork, decreasing the efficiency of this program and increasing trauma for victims. There is also less incentive for parties to settle during mediation as they are not funding the process. However, it should be noted that these are aspects of systems abuse and are not unique to the LAC Trial.

Priority Property Pool

The priority property pool (PPP) was established as a pilot program in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in 2020. It was designed to provide access to more simple and efficient court processes for property dispute settlements in family law. It was created for similar reasons of ensuring the court-led process would mitigate any power imbalances and ensuring that disclosure occurs expediently and efficiently while achieving just and equitable outcomes. To be eligible, the main requirement is for parties to file their initial application seeking a property or financial order only and that the value of the net assets must be less than $550,000 (excluding superannuation). Neither party can seek a parenting order unless the court makes an exception and declares the case to be a PPP case. There are two streams:

  1. a registrar-led stream where a judicial registrar assists the parties to resolve their property and financial arrangements by consent; and
  2. a judge-led limb which is a simpler procedural process and ends in a judicial determination if the registrar-led limb is unsuccessful.

In comparison to standard litigation, PPP is able to assist parties who were unable to negotiate out of court. Vulnerable parties are naturally more intimidated by the court process but can have better access due to simplified forms and reducing the number of forms required during the proceedings. This leads to a much more efficient court procedure, with an average turnaround of 6 months, much shorter than the years long standard litigation process. A timely resolution is important for vulnerable parties as to not increase financial hardship and trauma. Furthermore, the streamlined court process removes the requirement to file affidavit material which could reduce trauma for victims of family violence as they would not need to recount their experience or hear the other party’s affidavit as well. The registrar-led limb also has a more ‘hands-on’ case management approach and are able to identify unequal bargaining power or other dynamics. The other parties seem to be more compliant even in the registrar-limb, which focuses on a consensual solution, and parties take the process more seriously compared to mediation.

Similar to the LAC Trial, there could be difficulties with parties refusing to make frank financial disclosures and vulnerable parties having little access to financial documents, however, in PPP, judges can make orders. The major issue with PPP is that it leaves a gap for people experiencing family violence who fall within the PPP program but are ineligible for legal aid representation. Therefore, for a client who is experiencing financial hardship and unable to afford private representation, PPP may not be as helpful as the LAC Trial. It also excludes victims who are seeking a parenting order as well. While judges can make findings about family violence, the absence of affidavit material can decrease the likelihood for family violence allegations to be identified. Registrars have limited capacity to manage complex dynamics when it comes to non-compliance from the other party and usually requires the matter to be referred to a judge, which could increase the time required to finalise the outcome.

Continuation after the Pilot Programs

The LAC Trial and PPP were very successful during their pilot program period and have since been expanded by Victoria Legal Aid and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia respectively. The LAC Trial has been transformed into the Family Law Property Program and eligibility requirements for clients remain the same. Since the pilot program, funding has been extended twice with a current end date of 30 June 2025. The grants are capped for 20 parties per month and a lawyer can apply through Victoria Legal Aid’s online system, ATLAS.

The PPP program has continued since the pilot program and have expanded to all filing registries since. After an application has been made, a Judicial Registrar will review the application and determine whether it is a PPP case. If the applicant has an asset pool under $550,000, the required documents to initiate the process are the initiating application, a financial summary and a genuine steps certificate.

Overall, the LAC Trial is suited to a client who is in severe financial hardship and has experienced family violence, where the other party is willing to have mediation to resolve the dispute. The PPP is most suited towards a client whose other party is unwilling to engage with the client as the courts can help to make a judicial decision as it is a comparatively more formal setting. Both programs are suited towards clients who have serious financial hardship, however the LAC Trial guarantees legal representation. They are also both sensitive to that fact that a majority of the client base includes parties who have experienced family violence and try to even out unequal bargaining powers.

About Amy Li

Amy Li is a penultimate year student completing her Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Commerce double degree at Monash University. Amy is currently a paralegal at a plaintiff class actions firm and volunteers to assist refugees. Through her studies, she has developed a strong interest to improving access to the legal system for vulnerable individuals.

TIPS FOR NEW PRACTITIONERS: Getting your documents in order

Posted on by
1

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished and adapted with permission. The original publication can be located within The Conflict Management Academy.

When setting up your practice, it’s important to have all your documents in order. Many people don’t prepare in advance and then are in a last-minute panic when the first client turns up and they need paperwork! 

It’s also important to remember that each client may need different types of paperwork, so you adapt and tailor your documents to each client and context.

What documents do you need?

During your training as a coach or mediator, you probably discussed things like agreements to mediate, or coaching contracts, but these are not all you need. You will also need things like:

  • Enquiry-related documents (e.g. information sheets and brochures for parties, lawyers, support people or employers)
  • Business-related documents (e.g. proposals, scope of work, invoices or client databases)
  • Service-related documents (e.g. questionnaires and intake forms agreements to participate, privacy and confidentiality agreements, record of mediation outcomes, spreadsheet for recording property items, value or distribution documents)
  • Correspondence templates
  • Feedback sheets, surveys, and evaluation documents

You may need a few versions of each kind of document for different clients and situations. For example, when an employer is involved as sponsor or when there are multiple parties involved in the conflict (whether a workplace or family conflict) or documents related for different services (e.g. mediation and coaching).

How do you make these documents available?

As well as the content of these documents, you should consider carefully when and how they are made available to prospective or current clients. For example:

  • Are the documents (in a generic version) made available publicly (e.g. on your website)?
  • Are the documents sent to prospective or current clients (as templates or with their details added)?
  • How important is it that the clients read and/or understand the documents? How do you ensure this is likely to happen? What happens if the client does not read the documents you provided?
  • Do you recommend and/or suggest clients obtain (legal or other) advice about the contents of any documents provided?
  • How accessible are your documents (e.g. for people who have visual or other impairments)?
  • What opportunities are there for clients to discuss the contents of the documents with you?
  • Do clients need to sign any documents? Do these need to be witnessed (by anyone, a lawyer or JP)? Can they be signed electronically?

You may have been provided with pro-forma examples of documents, like agreements to mediate or confidentiality agreements, from your trainers or your accreditation bodies, and these are a useful foundation to work from. However, using them “out of the box” is not ideal, as your brand, your clients, and your context are unique, and you need documents that are designed for your particular practice.

I highly recommend you go through any template very carefully and identify any contents or language that needs adjusting.  You should do this when creating your own branded template, but you should also do a quick check for each client, to ensure that each document is tailored appropriately for the specific client and their situation.

Check the content is applicable

Check that the content of the document suits your client and their situation. For example:

  • Is there is an employer or sponsor involved?
  • Is this a two-party or a multi-party situation?
  • Will you be working in person or online?
  • Is the process going to be confidential, or are there reporting requirements (e.g. to an employer)?
  • Does the template refer to laws (e.g. in relation to a mediator’s obligation to disclose information to authorities in certain circumstances) that might vary across jurisdictions?
  • Does the document use terminology that is not relevant to your client’s context. For example, does the document refer to litigation or going to court when this isn’t something your client is likely to be considering, or include statements like “settlement is legally binding” which may not apply to your client’s situation.

Check that the language is suitable

Formal or informal? The language used will differ greatly depending on your client-base. If you are working as a mediator in a legal context, many of your lawyer-clients may be repeat clients so will not need a great deal of information. However, referring lawyers may be providing information to their clients (e.g. a panel of three mediators for the client to choose between) and so you may also want to provide information suitable for lawyers to give to their clients to help inform the client’s choice.

How the people involved are referred to? If you are working with two employees involved in a personality clash at work, they may not find it comfortable to be referred to as “disputants” or “parties”. Try to accommodate language that is suitable for the dispute. For example, if it is a family dispute involving children, referring to the parties as “parents”.

How is the situation or conflict described? If your clients are currently involved in litigation, it might be perfectly acceptable to refer to the situation using language like “the dispute”. However, if you are mediating between family members in a personal conflict or employees who have a personality difference, this terminology might not sit well with them. You might be better using language like “your concerns” or “your working relationship”. Try to be sensitive to what would be comfortable for your clients.

Is it consistent with your brand? If your brand is down-to-earth, plain English, and informal, then providing clients with documents full of legal-ease or formal terminology and language may create a disconnect for your clients. This doesn’t mean you don’t include necessary information, but rather try to use language that is clear and also consistent with your brand ‘voice’.

Is it ambiguous, overstating, or misleading?  Be very careful not to use sweeping statements that may be misinterpreted. Terms to be careful about include “voluntary” and “confidential”. Depending on the client’s circumstances, these terms may not apply in a straightforward manner and can create confusion and distrust (and even sometimes lead to complaints).  For example, an employee who is required to attend mediation as a condition of their employment may not feel that their participation is voluntary. Similarly, if following a workplace mediation, one participant breaches an agreement to keep the discussions confidential by talking with a colleague about what happened, there is often very little anyone can do about this.  This can lead to the other person complaining that “the mediator said it was confidential and yet they couldn’t stop them from talking about what happened”.

Conclusion

Getting your documents in order and knowing how to adapt them when needed is important to build credibility and professionalism in your work.

In our Beyond the Table course accessible on the Conflict Management Academy, we have created an entire module on Your Documents which can help you review a broad variety of examples of different kinds of documents and be tailored to fit your practice and your brand.

We consider different categories of documents, including:

  • Enquiry-related documents (e.g. information sheets and brochures for parties, lawyers, support people or employers)
  • Business-related documents (e.g. proposals, scope of work, invoices or client databases)
  • Service-related documents (e.g. questionnaires and intake forms agreements to participate, privacy and confidentiality agreements, record of mediation outcomes, spreadsheet for recording property items, value or distribution documents)
  • Correspondence templates
  • Feedback sheets, surveys, and evaluation documents

Author Biography

Dr Samantha (Sam) Hardy is the Director and Lead Trainer of the Conflict Management Academy. Sam is an experienced mediator, conflict coach, and the founder of the REAL Conflict Coaching System™. She provides conflict support to managers and leaders across the world as well as professional development training, supervision and mentorship to mediators and coaches who work with clients in conflict. Sam is an accredited mediator under the Australian National Mediation Accreditation System (NMAS), a certified transformative mediator by the United States Institute of Conflict Transformation, and a certified narrative coach. She has been awarded Conflict Coach of the Year at the Australian Dispute Resolution Awards in 2022 as well as the Australian Resolution Institute Award for Service to Dispute Resolution in 2021 for her leadership and innovation in the field. Sam also publishes widely in dispute and conflict resolution, including Dispute Resolution in Australia, Mediation for Lawyers and Conflict Coaching Fundamentals: Working with Conflict Stories.

Informed, Involved, Inclusive: The Proposed Curriculum

Posted on by
2

Rory Gowers & Milan Nitopi
This article is Part 2 of 3 in our series ‘Informed, Involved, Inclusive’.

Rory and Milan (left to right) presenting at the 12th Conference World Mediation Forum – Foro Mundial de Mediación in Brazil in November 2024.

Disclaimer: ​​This introductory story is a work of fiction and does not intend to resemble any person or their lived experiences. Names, persons, places, and incidents are products of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual events, locales, or persons is purely coincidental.

In the past…
Ashita had a promising future in Aressa, Syria. As a rising star in the development of artificial intelligence, she was ecstatic when her supervisor pulled her aside on Friday afternoon to share exciting news—her talents had been noticed. Come Monday morning, she would step into a new role, a significant leap forward in her career. As she travelled home that evening, she imagined the innovations she would contribute and the problems she would solve. But by Sunday night, the world she knew was gone.

Then something happened…
The war arrived without warning. Bombs shattered in the night sky, and chaos erupted in the streets. Her family fled in the back of a cattle truck that night, carrying with them only what they could. As the days turned into weeks, and the weeks turned into months, her past was slowly stripped away as she crossed each border. 

But eventually she arrived in her host country, and she was alone—her family was scattered, lost in the chaos of displacement. In her host country, Ashita faced a new kind of struggle. The temporary permit allowed her to stay, but it did not offer any sense of belonging. She could barely communicate her basic needs, let alone articulate her expertise in AI–employers saw a refugee, not a specialist. The locals eyed her with suspicion, their mistrust became a barrier she could not break down. Without any support or others willingness to understand, her talents and her livelihood began slipping away.

So now we’re doing this…
But there is another way. We offer a fresh and constructive path forward with specific application of the myRESPECTability model (Gowers, 2023) and through the Mastering Intercultural Mediation Initiatives (MIMI) training program. MIMI equips professionals in all fields with the skills to turn challenging intercultural communication into innovative and constructive dialogue with the involved stakeholders central to the issues in question. MIMI trained professionals will gain enhanced skills and competencies that enable them to facilitate sophisticated intercultural bridges to overcome long-standing cultural divides and reflect the current realities of our diverse, complex, and globalised world.

So we can have a future like this…
With skilled intercultural professionals, Ashita does not have to remain unseen. Professionals who are interculturally competent can help resolve situations–like Ashita’s–by adapting the standard mediation principles, processes and practices to ensure all parties feel able to express and address their interests, needs, and concerns in culturally relevant ways so that they may have an equal place at the table.

In this way, people who may be experiencing a sense of ‘out-culture’ can come into their foreground and make significant contributions for the benefit of the whole community as they now have an opportunity to share their insights and talents.
The Author/s have labeled this AI-generated content (AIGC). This indicates that this content was completely AI-generated or significantly edited with AI.

We share this so that we can create a future that bridges the gap between culture and encourages collaboration between people of all nations. We share this so that we can all work together to address global challenges and achieve solutions that promote peace, equity, and sustainability for all life on this planet. And, we share this so that we can equip the world with the knowledge and skills required for tomorrow’s challenges. But let us explain how we propose to do this…

In our first article we laid the foundations that underpin our proposed intercultural competency training model. In this article, we share our working developments that set out curriculum and rubric which outline the key assessments and learning objectives we intend to achieve.

    As becoming interculturally competent is more than an intellectual and mindful journey, we decided it is crucial to centre our training model on participant transformation. This means ensuring that key learning objectives are met, including:

    1. Participant engagement
    2. Research informed learning
    3. Self-reflection
    4. Flexibility

    MIMI Foundation 1: Interculturally Informed

    As the first foundation is a structured learning process centered on establishing the baseline knowledge of intercultural competence, we decided that participants would benefit most by undergoing an intensive workshop whereby they can both learn theory as well as engage in practical exercises with their cohort.

    We envision the workshop to be a total of 12 hours completed over a 3 day period (4 hours each day). Throughout the 3 days, participants will engage in collaborative style learning to learn intercultural theory as well as participate in group discussions and completion of case studies. Upon completion of the 3 days, participants will submit a portfolio detailing their reflections of the theory and activities they engaged in.

    Group discussions will focus on key interculturality issues in mediation practice, root causes for communication and dialogue issues, as well as a discussion of case studies to address questions such as:

    • How did each party feel about the experience?
    • What was the impact on the parties?
    • What could the facilitator have done differently?
    • How did the different communication skills influence the outcome?
    • What does that tell us about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?

    We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:

    1. To engage in the workshop including all group discussions, case study analyses, and other activities. This will be evidenced by their attendance and their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
    2. To learn and demonstrate an understanding of intercultural theory and its application to communication and dialogue within mediation practice. This will be evidenced by their portfolio submission following the 3 days.
    3. To self-reflect on learnings, insights, and peer contributions. This will also be evidenced by their portfolio submission following the 3 days.

    MIMI Foundation 2:  Interculturally Involved

    As the second foundation is centered on developing a deeper understanding of other-cultural needs, values, and expectations, we decided that participants would benefit most by undergoing a full other-culture immersion program whereby they can become practically involved to witness, first-hand, their stories, songs, and symbols.

    We recommend that participants undergo 10 consecutive days of immersion (with no less than 3 consecutive days). However, it is not a ‘one size fits all’ situation. Some participants may require more or less time to become fully involved in the other-culture–and that is okay! We support flexibility and we encourage participants to be self-determined in their own learning. During and upon completion of their immersion experience, participants will be required to submit a portfolio documenting their daily and final reflections.

    In documenting their daily reflections, participants will be prompted on a variety of intercultural issues, such as:

    • What is a specific cultural difference and similarity you experienced today?
    • What was a communication and dialogue challenge you perceived today?
    • How and why did you address and/or manage the intercultural challenge that you faced today?
    • Record one specific cultural story, song, or symbol that you experienced today.

    In documenting their final reflection, participants will be prompted on key interculturality issues in mediation practice or root causes for communication and dialogue issues by drawing on their own knowledge, insights, and immersion experience, such as:

    • How have your learnings and experiences affected your approach to peoples of an other-culture in your day to day life and/or in your mediation practice?
    • What communication or dialogue skills will you bring into your life and/or mediation practice?
    • How are those communication or dialogue skills relevant to effective mediation practice?
    • What do your learnings and experiences tell you about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?

    We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:

    1. To engage in at least 3 days of immersion in the other-culture and demonstrate a willingness to participate despite feeling a sense of discomfort, unease, or unfamiliarity. This will be evidenced by their attendance and daily reflections.
    2. To learn and develop an acceptance of the needs, interests, concerns, expectations of the other-culture in a way that is culturally relevant to their own intercultural interactions and mediation practice. This will be evidenced by their daily and final reflections.
    3. To self-reflect on learnings, insights, and lived experience. This will also be evidenced by their daily and final reflections.

    MIMI Foundation 3: Interculturally Included 

    As the third foundation is focused on putting learnings and reflections into practice, we decided that participants would benefit most by engaging in a final practical workshop to adapt their current core principles, practices, and processes to the interests, needs, concerns, and expectations of the other-culture they immersed themselves in.

    We envision the workshop to be a total of 20 hours completed over a 5-day period (4 hours each day). Throughout the 5 days, participants will engage in activities such as group discussions, case studies, and role-play exercises. The key focus of this workshop is for participants to demonstrate they are able to accurately identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context. Upon completion of the 5 days, participants will be required to submit an ‘Intercultural Practice Statement’ as well as a portfolio detailing the activities they engaged in.

    Group discussions, case studies, and role-play exercises will focus on key interculturality issues in mediation practice, root causes for communication and dialogue issues, as well as a discussion of case studies to address questions such as:

    • How did each party feel about the experience?
    • What was the impact on the parties?
    • What could the facilitator have done differently?
    • How did the different communication skills influence the outcome?
    • What does that tell us about the importance of intercultural principles in mediation?

    The ‘Intercultural Practice Statement’ is a refined methodology for intercultural interaction and participants will be required to present this with their cohort. This provides an opportunity for them, as well as their cohort, to share insights and experience so that they can learn from each other. Participants will be asked to address a final question such as:

    • What are you going to do differently (i.e., how are you planning to include your learnings and experience into your life) now that you are informed and involved with the other-culture?

    We expect participants will satisfy the following rubric components to demonstrate their competence in being interculturally informed:

    1. To engage in the workshop including all group discussions, case study analyses, role-plays, and other activities. This will be evidenced by their attendance and their portfolio submission following the 5 days.
    2. To apply their learnings and insights accurately to identify and address communication and dialogue issues within an intercultural context and in a way that is culturally relevant to their own intercultural interactions and mediation practice. This will be demonstrated by their portfolio submission following the 5 days.
    3. To present their intercultural practice statement to their cohort. This will be evidenced by their attendance and portfolio submission following the 5 days. 
    4. To self-reflect on learnings, insights, lived experience, and peer contributions. This will also be evidenced by their intercultural practice statement and portfolio submission following the 5 days.

    Intercultural Competency Specialisation (optional add-on)
    As an optional add-on, practitioner-based participants (mediators, family dispute resolution practitioners, lawyers, etc.) can elect to undergo a further 1.5 hour role-play assessment to apply their learnings in a practical scenario.

    Our vision for the future is to incorporate this training model within leading institutions (such as mediator Recognised Accreditation Providers, Law Societies, Bar Associations, etc.) to develop an intercultural competency specialisation that practitioners can obtain and enhance their own competencies and professional practices.

    Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

    Each foundation addresses a different, but very necessary, aspect in intercultural competence development. But, because we believe that competency requires ongoing and continual development, the program will provide life-time access to resources and be supported by mentors, alumni, and peers in the online myRespectAbility community.

    Professional Members will also receive exclusive discounts on registration in other myRespectAbility or Affiliate programs and workshops. 

    Participants who demonstrate extraordinary performance throughout the program may be invited to add a chapter to the Intercultural Competence Playbook–a journal that we will publish, print, and mail annually–and is an opportunity for all to learn from others’ insights and experiences.

    Author Biography

    Rory Gowers is a Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR), a Master of Education (MEd), an intercultural mediator, and a business strategist, residing in Greater Sydney, Australia. Rory has extensive international experience as a visionary business problem solver, and certified results coach. Rory’s mission is to facilitate a more respectful world by inspiring people and groups to transform business ecosystems with practical sustainable solutions with a vision to facilitate a place for all and peace for all in our time. Contact Rory via
    Webpage: www.myRESPECTability.com
    Email: rory.gowers@gmail.com
    Mobile: +61 425 292 811
    LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/constructiveconflictsolutions

    Milan Nitopi is an accredited lawyer and mediator with a Master of Laws in Family Dispute Resolution (LLM FDR). Milan has a passion concerning people, law, and resolution and he strives to equip people with skills for better communication and dialogue to address all kinds of conflict.
    Contact Milan via
    Email: manitopi@outlook.com
    Mobile: +61 432 547 538
    LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/manitopi/

    Designing a Trauma-Informed Family Dispute Resolution Process

    Posted on by
    4

    By Shanza Shafeek       

    This is the first blog post in a series written by undergraduate law students enrolled in Monash University’s Non-Adversarial Justice unit in 2024. The very best posts have been published here.

    Family disputes are inherently stressful, but for those who have experienced trauma—especially from domestic and family violence—the process can be even more overwhelming.

    While the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)  promotes Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) as a flexible, less adversarial alternative to litigation, it often fails to adequately address the unique needs of trauma survivors. This highlights the urgent need for a trauma-informed FDR service that supports victims while promoting healing.

    In this blog post, we will explore the concept of FDR, the importance of a trauma-informed approach, the key elements that make it effective, the challenges it presents, and how these elements contribute to a more empathetic, supportive process.

    What is Family Dispute Resolution?

    FDR is a process where an accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner (‘FDRP’) helps families resolve disputes related to separation or divorce outside of court.

    The FDRP assists in creating parenting plans that outline future arrangements based on the best interests of the children. The goal is to resolve issues through ‘genuine effort’before resorting to court orders, promoting ‘cooperative parenting’.

    Mandatory FDR requirements include exemptions for cases involving child abuse, family violence, urgency, or an inability to participate, ensuring that FDR is only used when appropriate.

    The Need for a Trauma-Informed FDR Service

    Trauma-informed care recognises the profound impact trauma has on individuals and strives to create a safe, supportive environment for survivors. Despite some exemptions, around 41% of family violence victims still use FDR to address their needs. However, the adversarial nature of disputes, the presence of perpetrators, and the language used in FDR can trigger past trauma, making the process harmful for victims.

    Philippa Davis from the Women’s Legal Service emphasises the importance of having ‘safe processes’ for family violence survivors. Around 23% of victims report feelings of fear and power imbalances during FDR, which often leads to pressure to accept unsafe and undesired agreements. A trauma-informed FDR service, on the other hand, facilitates safer participation, enhances communication, and increases the likelihood of reaching mutually satisfactory agreements.

    For example, Rachael Field and Angela Lynch introduced the ‘Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution’ (CFDR) model in 2009—a trauma-informed, four-phase framework. Piloted in five Australian locations, this model was evaluated as ‘holistic and safe’ for victims, demonstrating the positive impact of trauma-informed practices in FDR.

    Elements of a Trauma-Informed FDR Service

    A trauma-informed FDR service must integrate six key elements to address trauma.

    1. Before the Session:

    Assessments:

    A trauma-informed FDR service must start with comprehensive suitability and risk assessments to ensure the process is both safe and supportive for victims. These assessments should evaluate critical factors such as violence, power imbalances, and the psychological well-being of participants to determine whether FDR is suitable.

    FDRPs should be trained to conduct trauma assessments effectively in cases involving trauma. Studies show that around 30% of parents feel FDRPs lack the necessary expertise to address abuse, highlighting a significant gap in knowledge. This points to an urgent need for targeted training in trauma-informed practices, including safety planning and psychological first aid, so FDRPs can perform these assessments effectively.

    Cultural competence is also a key component of these assessments, especially when working with diverse trauma survivors. Susan Armstrong emphasises that FDRPs have reported ‘less confidence’ in cultural competence, indicating the need for cultural training (including First Nations traditions) to ensure parties feel understood, respected and supported from the outset.

    Once FDR is deemed suitable, practitioners and domestic violence workers should adopt a ‘multidisciplinary’ approach to develop risk management plans that address the specific trauma needs identified during assessments. Andrew Bickerdike highlights that these plans may include measures such as separate waiting areas and virtual FDR options to create a more supportive environment for victims.

    Information:

    Clear and comprehensive information must be provided to participants before FDR sessions. As Joanne Law highlights, this information should include details on participation requirements, the roles of FDRPs and lawyers, any necessary religious or cultural accommodations, and the availability of breaks.

    Participants should also be informed of their right to have a support person, their ability to express discomfort or withdraw from the process, and the trauma-informed practices in place, such as promoting autonomy and empowerment. Eugene Opperman emphasises that providing this information helps alleviate pre-session anxiety, as it ensures participants are fully aware of their rights and the measures in place to safeguard their well-being.

    • During the Session:

    Safe Participation

    During the sessions, it is crucial to create a safe environment that encourages active participation. A ‘co-mediation approach’ as suggested by Field and Lynch for the CFDR model, can be particularly effective. This approach involves using gender-balanced mediators and legal advocates for both parties to prevent ‘gender bias’– an issue highlighted in the Post-2006 Evaluation Report.

    FDRPs must cultivate a welcoming atmosphere using calming language, offering private rooms to ensure confidentiality, and ‘giving ample time for each party to speak’—strategies emphasised by Dee Hardy. Such an environment helps parties make decisions that align with their own interests and the best interests of their children, rather than feeling pressured into ‘unfavourable choices’, which has been a noted concern.

    Corinne Henderson and Isobel Everett further recommend minimising staffing changes, offering a variety of choices, and avoiding arbitrary rules to ensure consistent participation. These elements enhance trauma-management and foster open communication, ultimately making the process more effective for everyone involved.

    Validation:

    Validation is a crucial component of a trauma-informed FDR service. FDRPs should actively listen to participants, ask trauma-sensitive questions like “How did that make you feel?” and express genuine empathy. These actions help bolster participants’ self-worth and support their emotional well-being, addressing the high levels of acrimony and self-doubt reported by 17% of parties in family disputes.

    FDRPs should also remain attuned to participants’ emotional states throughout the session. The concept of the ‘window of tolerance,’ as described by Pat Ogden, Clare Pain and Janina Fisher, is particularly useful. This framework helps FDRPs recognise when a participant is approaching the limits of their emotional regulation—whether in a state of hyperarousal (anxiety) or hypo-arousal (shutdown).

    By adjusting the process to stay within the participant’s ‘their ‘optimal state of balance’, FDRPs create a supportive and constructive environment.

    • After the Session:

    Summaries:

    After each session, FDRPs should provide a clear summary of the outcomes and outline the next steps to ensure that all parties understand the progress made, helping to alleviate anxiety.

    Conducting a debriefing immediately after the session allows participants to reflect on their experiences, validate their emotions, and address any lingering concerns. By actively involving them in determining the next steps, this trauma-informed approach enhances their sense of control and supports their healing.

    Follow-Ups:

    Follow-ups are essential for providing ongoing support and ensuring the long-term effectiveness of agreements. Around 19% of parents who reach an FDR agreement no longer have one a year later. To address this, a follow-up within 1-3 months should assess the agreement’s effectiveness and evaluate parties’ evolving needs. Itshould also include a specialist risk assessment for any new concerns and seek feedback on the trauma-informed FDR service.

    A second follow-up, 6-12 months later, should focus on the long-term impact of the mediation, review any additional support needs (such as counselling), and explore the possibility of further mediation. Similar to the CFDR approach, this continued access to resources ensures that parties receive sustained support throughout their healing journey.

    Challenges:

    Designing a trauma-informed FDR service comes with its challenges. The AIFS evaluation of CFDR found that “some parents still experienced considerable emotional difficulty, even trauma, in mediation,” highlighting the ongoing challenge of effectively addressing trauma within FDR processes.

    Additionally, Field and Lynch point out that trauma can significantly impair communication skills, suggesting that specialised training in ‘communication’ and negotiation strategies is essential for trauma-informed FDR services—though such training can be costly.

    A trauma-informed FDR service also requires substantial resources, including ongoing, high-quality training for FDRPs and regular evaluations. These challenges must be carefully managed to ensure that trauma-informed FDR services are effective and sustainable.

    A trauma-informed FDR service is crucial to effectively support trauma survivors. By integrating the six core elements, FDR can foster healing and achieve outcomes that the adversarial system often fails to provide. As our understanding of trauma continues to grow, FDR services must evolve to offer the compassionate care that victims truly need.

    ChatGPT use:

    This blog post was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT to identify key issues, which were subsequently fact-checked and supported with relevant journal articles. The insights provided by ChatGPT helped shape the initial framework, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the topic.

    About the author:

    My name is Shanza Shafeek, and I am a fourth-year Law/Arts student at Monash University, specialising in sociology. I am currently working as a paralegal in institutional abuse and as a marketing team member for the Muslim Legal Network. I have also been actively involved as a Monash Law Ambassador and a Human Rights Project member for Amnesty International. I am passionate about legal policy, family law, and promoting culturally responsive approaches within legal practice to support diverse communities. I can be found on Linked In.

    Vale Dr John Woodward

    Posted on by
    4
    John, taking a break from writing at the University of Newcastle in March 2020

    It is with sadness that our community honours the passing of Dr John Woodward on 5 February.   

    John was a trusted colleague, a dedicated member of this Network, a solicitor who spent almost 30 years in litigation practice, a mediator, an arbitrator, and a member of the Law Society of NSW ADR Committee.   He was also so much more than his career achievements, a man who spoke lovingly of his family, an artist, avid tennis player and a friend to so many. One of John’s greatest contributions to the world of ADR was his time spent teaching students in the legal clinic and in civil procedure. His encyclopaedic knowledge of litigation allowed him to speak with an authority on why cultural change in the legal profession is essential, and students listened to what he had to say.

    Litigation had been the cornerstone of most of John’s career, and his experience eventually led him to become a keen observer of litigation’s shortcomings. Here is how John explained his ‘conversion’ from hard-nosed litigator to a strong believer in the power of mediation and “the vision of a broader view of justice“:

    “[My conclusion was] after thirty years of legal practice as a commercial litigator, that the solutions being offered to litigants by the traditional justice system were somewhat less than ideal.  Clients were complaining that the court could not offer the relief they were seeking, the costs of “winning” were prohibitively high and most of the cases in which I was instructed were resolved on some basis well before they reached a hearing. 

    Try as I might, I could never quite be convinced of the claim that the public interest in having the courts “…explicate and give force to the values embodied in authoritative texts…” (1) or otherwise declare the law for the benefit of the public good, had any real relevance to some of the mundane and routine cases in which I was involved.  In fact, of all of the hundreds of cases in which I acted throughout my career as a lawyer, only two found their way into the law reports.” 1

    After graduating with a Masters in Dispute Resolution from UNSW, John decided to commence his PhD, as he felt that regulators had made certain assumptions about the legal change that had been brought about by civil procedure rules mandating mediation. The topic resonated well with one of John’s favourite quotes:

    “How small, of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws or kings can cause or cure.”

    You can read an earlier profile of John and his PhD work in this blog post from 2016.   He graduated in 2019, with his dissertation modestly entitled “Lawyer approaches to Court-Connected Mediation: A New Case Study,” and this is available free open access through SSRN. The key finding of John’s PhD research, based on a large set of qualitative data, was that lawyers are keenly aware of their ethical obligations towards their clients in terms of protecting them, but that this gave rise to a reluctance to have clients directly participating in the mediation process. He also identified that the profession remains generally confused about the extend of confidentiality in mediation, and that this further inhibits lawyers from engaging fully in the mediation process. Finally, he noted that there were still cultural barriers within the profession, stemming at least in part from the limits of most models of legal education.

    John’s 2019 PhD Graduation

    Some of John’s pieces on this network include: 

    John Woodward (far left) at the  6th ADR Research Roundtable at the University of Otago in 2017

    Some of John’s scholarly articles include:

    John had a fight on his hands after being diagnosed with an aggressive glioblastoma in mid-2023, and he faced that fight with his usual sense of humour and determination, exceeding the dire predictions of his life expectancy but cautioning me regularly with a grin, “don’t buy me any green bananas.” I had the privilege of supervising John’s PhD thesis at UNSW and then at the University of Newcastle, and as the decade passed, we built a friendship based on a passion for ADR (and also for coffee) that transcended the difference in our life stages.

    Thank you John for all you taught us, for the future generation of lawyers you helped educate, and for showing us all the power of change to make the world a better place. Ave atque Vale (hail and farewell).

    At the 13th ADR Research Network Roundtable in November, we will hold a session in John’s honour.  If you’d like to be involved, please contact me or respond to the call for papers. 

    1. Quote from John’s 2018 blog post about his PhD journey ↩︎

    Save the date, Lucky 13th Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network Roundtable, 27-28 November 2025, Monash University

    Posted on by
    Reply

    The Faculty of Law, Monash University is proud to host the 13th Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network Roundtable on Thursday 27 and Friday 28 November 2025 at the Monash University Clayton Campus (approx. 30 minutes from Melbourne CBD). There are many public transport options to Monash from inner city Melbourne and we will share details for attendees from afar.

    The Roundtable is an opportunity to present work in progress and receive feedback and critique in a supportive and friendly environment, and to network with leading dispute resolution academics. We have honed our format over the years and will adopt the following approach:

    • a focus on work in progress (ie, it’s not a conference, but a collaborative workshop around a table of supportive peers)
    • a limited number of papers selected for in-depth discussion
    • there is at least one appointed commentator for each paper
    • attendance is limited to people who are presenting or commentating upon papers
    • full papers must be submitted for distribution one month prior to the roundtable
    • publication of a blog post based upon the paper is expected for all presenters

    Anyone working in civil justice and any form of dispute resolution including mediation, conciliation, negotiation and arbitration is encouraged to attend. Scholars from outside Australia are also welcome to attend.

    Early Career Researchers and PhD students are particularly encouraged to participate. We are a kind and supportive group of scholars and are very welcoming of newcomers.

    The call for papers will be released in June or July.

    Queries can be directed to the convenor and co-President of the ADRRN: Becky Batagol (Monash University) Becky.Batagol@monash.edu.

    This roundtable will be supported by the Australian Centre for Justice Innovation

    Written Off: Three Steps to Move Forward When You Feel Rejected

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Dan Berstein

    Whatever the reason for it and whoever it comes from, rejection hurts. 

    In 2022 I wrote a book called Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment with hopes to teach people skills for managing challenging behaviors without writing off people with mental illnesses. At the time, this book represented a culmination of my life’s work and it meant a lot for to me that it found a home at the American Bar Association (ABA). 

    Three years later, my ABA affiliation was unfortunately terminated following a difficult saga, for me and many others, as I was wrestling with interpersonal struggles and bipolar symptoms.   The news of my termination was very difficult. I have been hospitalized five times due to my bipolar disorder–always during times when I became overwhelmed by similar interpersonal challenges. During each episode, I would break down, my mind would get stuck on a problem, and I would decompensate into mania or even psychosis. My condition has a high risk for instability and suicide, with research showing that each subsequent episode means a decreased odds of returning to normal functioning.1

    Being terminated from the ABA overwhelmed me. It was a sudden emotional crisis that put me at risk. I required emergency medication, emergency therapy sessions, and emergency support from friends and family. We summoned all of the lessons from decades of managing my condition in order to make it through.

    Even though it was an immensely challenging period in my life, this time something was different. In 2023, and as part of my professional work as a conflict resolver, I had developed a system for responding to avoidance, rejection, and social exclusion. I presented a three-step model to get through these especially challenging situations, which I call the 3 R’s, at the Association for Conflict Resolution conference and the Academy of American Law Schools ADR Works-In-Progress conferences.

    Without the skills of the 3 R’s, I do not know how I would have coped with being terminated. That system consists of:

    • Respect.
    • Reply.
    • Reorient. 

    The 3 R’s approach readily lends itself to any situation and can be easily used by anyone when they face rejection from friends, family, colleagues. Here’s how it works:

    1. Respect the person’s decision even if you find it stigmatizing or you disagree with it.

    While it is tempting to try to convince them of your worth, dispel lies or inaccuracies, and seek ways to still have the relationship, it can also be dangerous. 

    Sadly, I’ve learned in my life that, given I’m open with my bipolar disorder, it is easy for people to stigmatize my persistence to fight being rejected. Studies have shown that it is common that people with bipolar disorders are sensationalized in the media (such as TV shows or movies, and other portrayals).2 There is also research that shows people are more likely to worry someone that has a mental health problem is some kind of stalker.3 Amidst that kind of climate, it can be risky to continue contacting someone who may be seeing any follow-up through a stigmatizing lens. Arguing with their portrayal may only feed into the narrative.

    Stigma aside, in any conflict it is helpful to separate the person’s decision to cut contact with you from the explanation you are given or the style with which it is delivered. It may feel offensive, demeaning, disrespectful to be ghosted or to hear a story that does not ring true or clearly is contrived. But no matter how poorly implemented or inaccurate the rejection may seem to be, it still provides notice of a decision: however painful the circumstances, this person wants to diminish or end their relationship to you.

    Years of dispute resolution have taught me to prioritize self-determination,4 and made it easier for me to come to a place of accepting that a person made a rejection decision. 

    While it does not feel good to be rejected, it has been a relief to readily accept it instead of debating. If there are other problems related to what is happening, such as bullying or discrimination, it still can be best not to fight and instead look for other kinds of support.5

    2. Reply one last time to confirm the boundary.

    You may not always get a formal letter or confirmation (such as a letter of termination–like I received) when it comes to rejection and social exclusion with friends, family, or others.

    We live in a world filled with “ghosting” patterns–where people just pull away without contact–and things are left rather ambiguous and unclear.6 Sometimes it can be extremely ambiguous, such as in one of the latest dating trends where people engage in “breadcrumbing” to keep romantic partners on the hook or on hold.7

    This is why, whenever anyone seems to be avoiding contact with me, I send one final reply to let them know that I am acknowledging what I perceive to be their boundary to be and that I plan to follow it. Depending on your personal boundaries, you might also let them know you are available in the future if they change their mind on reconnecting. In the course of my mental illness discrimination advocacy work, I typically take that approach, with hopes that one day the people or organizations who are avoiding me will evolve and want to engage. In that case, I want them to know the door is still open for that.

    Sending this reply is important because it is possible–given any ambiguity–that there was a misperception. Sometimes people will immediately let you know that they didn’t mean to make you feel rejected and they might undo the boundary. On the other hand, if they are intent on the rejection, your reply documents that you are honoring their boundary and that record can be helpful, particularly to guard against the stigmas mentioned earlier.

    3. Reorient to next steps rather than stay stuck in pain.

    This is my favorite “R” because this approach has truly changed my life. Before the 3 R’s, I would stay fixated obsessing on hating myself, endorsing self-stigmas, wallowing, and reliving the loss over and over whilst descending into a dark place in my mind.

    But there is another way. If we commit to focusing on reorienting ourselves to discover new opportunities, we can enrich our lives. Since I started using the 3 R’s model in my life, I have connected with new friends and colleagues, developed new projects and partnerships, and become active in new communities–all because I decided to immediately accept the person’s decision to cut contact with me and start looking for new people and places to be involved instead. Since 2023, when I first created this system, my life has grown at a meteoric rate with many new opportunities which I have found and nurtured every time I reorient.

    My initial connection to Australia came by my efforts to reach out to someone in early 2024 and during a time when I received a different rejection letter related to my anti-discrimination advocacy work. This new relationship was a welcoming one where we collaborated on programs, and eventually led to a conference invitation from someone else and then to my writing on this Blog. None of this would have happened if I had not decided to reorient and move forward. And that example is just a fraction of the rich relationships I have developed when I took chances on reorienting toward new things instead of fighting to cling onto what I had already lost.

    I am sad that my bipolar disorder and interpersonal struggles led to difficult circumstances with the ABA and led to my termination. At the same time, I am grateful that the 3 R’s helped me get through it and land on my feet. This method has helped me in a time of need where I have felt unwelcomed in any community or with any person. Remembering to do it when I am feeling hurt has allowed me to make healthier, more empowering decisions.

    Even when I was so dysregulated by my serious mental illness and wrestling with an influx of distressed energy, I was still able to tap into those 3 R’s to ensure I made the best possible decisions to:

    1. Respect peoples’ choices instead of fighting to prove my worth,
    2. Reply to work things out instead of begging to return, and,
    3. Reorient to fill my life with opportunities that were a better fit for me and my sometimes-challenging mental health problems.

    I will still love the American Bar Association, albeit from afar and via nostalgic memories, I still have a page posted summarizing much of my anti-discrimination work there and other projects from my four years as Co-Chair of the ABA’s Dispute Resolution Section Diversity Committee. During this time, I made many friends and did a lot of important work. Though I will certainly miss being connected with so many great opportunities and new ideas, I will keep reorienting amidst the loss. Meanwhile, I will always recommend that anyone who does have access avail themselves of the myriad of resources disseminated by the ABA and often developed from their community of over 200,000 members.

    The 3 R’s have helped me prevent complete breakdowns and manage challenging times in my life. These skills have helped me find and new opportunities during times I might have otherwise fallen apart. Anyone can use this simple yet powerful system when they face rejection in their lives.

    Author Biography

    Dan Berstein is a mediator living with bipolar disorder who uses conflict resolution best practices to promote empowering mental health communication and prevent mental illness discrimination.  His company, MH Mediate, has helped thousands of professionals and organizations be empowering, accessible, and non-discriminatory toward people with disclosed or suspected mental health problems. Dan holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Wharton School. He is the author of the 2022 book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.

    1. Gergel, T., Adiukwu, F., & McInnis, M. (2024). Suicide and bipolar disorder: opportunities to change the agenda. The Lancet Psychiatry; Peters, A. T., West, A. E., Eisner, L., Baek, J., & Deckersbach, T. (2016). The burden of repeated mood episodes in bipolar I disorder: results from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 204(2), 87-94. ↩︎
    2. Klin, A., & Lemish, D. (2008). Mental disorders stigma in the media: Review of studies on production, content, and influences. Journal of health communication, 13(5), 434-449. ↩︎
    3. Wheatley, R., & Underwood, A. (2023). Stalking and the impact of labelling “There’sa difference between my offence and a stalker”. Journal of criminal psychology, 13(2), 91-104. ↩︎
    4. Baruch Bush, R. A., & Berstein, D. (2023). Orienting Toward Party Choice: A Simple Self-Determination Tool for Mediators. J. Disp. Resol., 1. ↩︎
    5. Tuckey, M. R., Li, Y., Neall, A. M., Chen, P. Y., Dollard, M. F., McLinton, S. S., … & Mattiske, J. (2022). Workplace bullying as an organizational problem: Spotlight on people management practices. Journal of occupational health psychology, 27(6), 544. ↩︎
    6. Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. (2019). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of relationships predict beliefs about ghosting. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 905-924. ↩︎
    7. Navarro, R., Larrañaga, E., Yubero, S., & Víllora, B. (2020). Psychological correlates of ghosting and breadcrumbing experiences: A preliminary study among adults. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(3), 1116. ↩︎

    A Fresh Perspective on Conflict Management: Upcoming 7th Edition of a Seminal Text

    Posted on by
    Reply

    The enduring relevance of Conflict Management: A Practical Guide lies in its comprehensive exploration of approaches, strategies, tactics, and techniques essential for adopting a constructive and positive approach to conflict. Originally published in 1991 as a foundational text for practitioners, educators, and scholars in the field of conflict resolution, the book has evolved alongside the dynamic field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Australia. Now, the text is set to enter its seventh edition, reaffirming its significance in the discipline.

    Authors Expertise

    Dr. Peter Condliffe, the book’s author, has a distinguished career in the field. Serving as a Director on the Mediator Standards Board since 2018 and its Chairperson from 2023 to 2024, Peter has played a pivotal role in the NMAS Review and the transition to AMDRAS in Australia. As a practicing barrister and mediator in Victoria, his career has included leadership roles in management, human rights, and ADR, such as CEO of the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia, Director of Dispute Resolution Centres in Queensland’s Department of Justice and Attorney-General, and engagements with the United Nations. Across its six editions, the book has maintained a multidisciplinary framework reflective of Peter’s extensive expertise.

    The upcoming edition will introduce Dr. Claire Holland as co-author. Claire is a practicing mediator, conflict coach, workplace facilitator, and trainer who brings a wealth of academic and practical knowledge to the text. Having used the book extensively in her teaching career, she will incorporate fresh perspectives and insights. Notably, Claire will introduce two new frameworks:

    1. Conflict Analysis Framework: Co-developed with Dr. Judith Herrmann-Rafferty, this tool supports parties in conflict—and the professionals assisting them—to understand the dynamics of a conflict and make informed decisions about next steps.
    2. Planned Approach to Conflict Engagement: Also co-developed by Herrmann-Rafferty and Holland, this framework provides advanced strategies for managing ongoing conflict. It integrates insights and approaches from neuroscience on emotional regulation, fostering cultural awareness, and emphasises sustainable methods for addressing ongoing conflict.

    Call for Feedback

    Condliffe and Holland are seeking input from practitioners, researchers, and readers to shape the new edition. Feedback on areas to retain, adapt, or expand is particularly welcome. As a text designed for both practical application and academic instruction, the authors are keen to ensure the content remains relevant to its diverse audience, from university courses to professional development settings.

    Key Updates in the 7th Edition

    The new edition, retitled Conflict Management and Resolution: Theory and Practice, reflects an evolving understanding of conflict. It acknowledges that resolution is not always achievable or desirable and incorporates broader perspectives on conflict engagement. Planned updates include:

    • Reflections on the new AMDRAS regulatory standards in Australia.
    • Expanded coverage of specialties, such as mediation, restorative justice, First Nations processes, complaints management, and group facilitation.
    • Updates on negotiation concepts and processes, incorporating recent scholarship.
    • Insights into online and AI-assisted dispute resolution.
    • Expanded references to feminist theory and contemporary ADR approaches, including dispute system design.
    • A comprehensive update to the history of ADR in Australia.

    Proposed Topics for the New Edition

    The seventh edition will include chapters on:

    • Navigating Conflict
    • Responding to Conflict
    • Managing Difficult Conversations
    • History of Dispute Resolution in Australia
    • Collaborative Practice
    • Contemporary Approaches to Conflict Management and Resolution
    • Negotiation
    • Mediation
    • Group Facilitation
    • Key Practitioner Skills in Conflict Management and Resolution
    • Managing Ongoing Conflict
    • Dispute System Design

    Engage with the Authors

    Practitioners and academics are encouraged to contribute by sharing research, case studies, or ideas that could enhance the upcoming edition. Your insights will help ensure that Conflict Management and Resolution: Theory and Practice continues to be an indispensable resource for anyone engaging with conflict management in theory or practice.

    Stay tuned for the release of this significant update in late 2025—a resource designed to reflect the latest developments in conflict resolution and equip readers with the tools they need to navigate the complexities of modern conflicts.

    Please feel free to contact or write to either of the authors:
    Dr Peter Condliffe: pc@vicbar.com.au
    Dr Claire Holland: claire.holland@jcu.edu.au

    Writing Off “Difficult” Parties? Five Ways to Set Boundaries While Being Inclusive

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Dr Oz Susler & Dan Berstein

    In conflicts, there are times when one party gives up on connecting with another party and begins to dehumanise them. As ADR practitioners, one of our responsibilities is to prevent that from happening, and yet there are still times we may even find ourselves so distressed that we end up writing a person off too.

    In a sense it is natural, as human beings to mentally separate ourselves when we encounter someone who seems different, unfamiliar, or atypical and to become guarded when a person challenges us. We all have biases. But that is something we must be conscious of and guard against as ADR professionals – whether we are in the role of mediator, arbitrator, ombuds, or any other type of dispute resolver.

    In this article, we demonstrate the pervasive and impactful attitudes that unfortunately can lead practitioners to have biases against those who may have mental health differences – and we share tools to prevent parties from being written off.

    We begin by presenting some dispute resolution guidance circulating in Australia that teaches professionals to see someone who seems to have a possible mental impairment as a “difficult” or “high conflict” hazard to handle, avoid, or engage with using a different style of mediation than we might normally pursue.  We conclude with resources to help practitioners prevent and address this problem of parties being written off.

    Australian Guidance to Write People Off As “High Conflict”

    In the Australian ADR literature, there are instances where people regarded as having mental disorders and related impairments have been inappropriately deemed to be “difficult people” or “high conflict people” and unfit to receive normal mediation. 

    This phenomenon, where well-meaning mediators use proxy labels to suggest that people with mental impairments need to be treated differently (often with briefer or more restricted communication), is sadly somewhat common.  It has been well-documented as problematic, including in Ending the Epidemic of Accidental Personality Disorder Discrimination by Well-Meaning Mediators.1

    Below is an overview of some examples in the Australian discourse where these ideas have been spreading (note that much of this guidance is bundled with de-escalation interventions or communication ideas to have some kind of different process for including so-called “high conflict people” but this well-meaning paternalism is often still based on the stigmatizing assumption that these people are not reachable for normal communication).

    Also, we note that we present the below five lessons from this guidance as a criticism, and we do not recommend people make guesses about who may be living with a mental impairment or profile those people for different treatment. What you should not do:

    1: Try to guess who has a personality disorder or related disabling mental impairment

    Resolution Institute provided a 2023 training to “identify five personality types” which are derived from clinical mental disorders as part of the “New Ways for Mediation” model that teaches a different type of mediation which avoids some of the aspects of mediation normally available to parties.2

    2: Assume that any issue from the person is due to their impairments and not a legitimate issue

    The Council of Australian Tribunals (COAT) Resource Library has a 2022 resource posted in their Resource Library, called “Working Effectively with High Conflict People.”3 Again, there is a focus on personality disorders including a chart of “5 High Conflict Personality Types” listing narcissistic, borderline, histrionic, antisocial, and paranoid (which are 5 clinical personality disorder diagnoses).  The resource includes a mantra for dismissing the so-called “high conflict person’s” complaints and focusing instead on writing them off with the idea that any problems are due to their presumed-to-be mentally impaired personality: “The issue’s not the issue. The personality’s the issue.” 

    3: Have briefer communication with someone you believe might have a “high conflict” mental impairment

    The State Government of Victoria State Services Authority provided a 2011 guidance document called “Dealing with High Conflict Behaviours”4 that discusses “working with a difficult person,” “identifying high conflict applicants,” and “keep[ing] encounters with a difficult person brief” – concluding that “you want to close the conversation and remove yourself from their presence.”

    QLS Proctor has a 2020 post, “Addressing high-conflict personalities” recommending people try responding to the “HCP” (high conflict person)” using a BIFF method to give briefer communication.5

    4: Try to avoid dealing with someone whom you believe is a “difficult” or “high conflict” person

    The Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia posted a 2024 article on LinkedIn called “Dealing with Difficult People and Behaviors”6 which includes several strategies.  The first is: “Strategy 1 – Don’t deal with them. Identify them early on and decide if you need and want to deal with them.”  This comes after the article introduces four personality disorders as being related to being a so-called difficult person, saying “Difficult people or high conflict people tend to have one or more of four types of Cluster B personality disorders.”

    Shepherds Family Law and Mediation Specialists says the “HCPs” will never change and urges readers to consider whether they actually want or need to work with them: “Personalities form by age 5 or 6, and then remain stable through life. Whilst individuals can modify their adult personalities, it takes great effort and generally requires professional assistance. HCPs lack insight and willingness to do so. You will therefore not change the HCP – do not try to do so. Instead, consider how you can work with them. Alternatively, consider whether you actually want to or need to work with them.”7

    5: Assume the person cannot ever change and you should forget about even discussing their emotions because they are not normal with their emotions

    The Divorce and Separation Hub has a 2022 post, “Are you negotiating a ‘High Conflict’ personality?” that explores those same 5 mental disorder-inspired personality types and writes, “It can be difficult to admit it, but there’s ultimately no way to resolve a ‘High Conflict’ situation with logic or persuasion. You will experience chaos, stress and confusion, while the High Conflict Individual will simply play out their life patterns. Others have tried to change them, without success, leaving a trail of frustration and disappointment.”8 It suggests one should take “the ‘forget about it’ approach” and forget about “discussions of emotions” due to the presumption that so-called “high conflict people” don’t experience normal emotional processes and will instead “carry around a feeling of being helpless, vulnerable, weak and like a victim-in-life.”

    Approaches like the ones above, teaching practitioners how to identify people as potentially having a disabling mental impairment, perhaps fitting the five personality disorder categories often explicitly being described in discussions of “high conflict personalities” – and teaching how to target these people, specifically, with different interventions based on those private working theories – have also been taught at some Australian universities.9

    How Can We Set Boundaries Without Writing Parties Off?

    Corresponding to each of the five ideas above, we present a corresponding list of five alternative suggestions below that we hope you will consider, instead of writing parties off by assuming they are too “difficult” or “high conflict.”  We also include resources to assist you to adopt this trauma-informed and procedurally fair approach. What you should do:

    1:  Provide trauma-informed accessibility options to all parties without asking them to disclose their disabilities or trying to guess them

    Dispute resolution professionals can present a menu of accessibility options to all parties as part of their intake and process – they can trust the parties to ask for whatever accommodations they might need, ideally without forcing anyone to disclose a disability, because mediation is a process where mediators aim to accommodate everyone.  Likewise, trauma-informed practices help us realize that all parties may have experienced different traumas with different, personal trauma responses.  We can endeavour to provide a safe, empowering space for them using trauma-informed approaches, which do not require that we make any guesses about their circumstances or compel their disclosure.

    To access some free resources that provide tools anyone can use to practice more accessibly using universal design principles, or to become trauma-informed, visit www.biasresistantcourts.org. This is part of a project funded by the American Arbitration Association – International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) Foundation and produced by the CUNY Dispute Resolution Center.

    2:  Listen to people and honour their self-determination

    Like anyone else, practitioners have their own biases and values, but the key is to prevent any personal ideas regarding a party from getting in the way of achieving a fair and impartial process for all.  Instead of labelling people based on their mental health and their behaviours and profiling them for different treatment, we should endeavour to give all parties choices about how they choose to have the process proceed – and avoid any negative stereotypes and potential discrimination against parties. All parties should be given accessible options for how to engage in the process instead of facing practitioners who make judgments about them and take those decisions away from them.  Any changes from the practitioner should be based on impartial standards that are followed with all parties, as opposed to singling out those perceived as “difficult” for different treatment.

    3:  Be equally available as a communicator to all parties

    Instead of writing people off as “difficult” or “high conflict” people when we are distressed or irritated, it is better to have real plans for challenging behaviours. Just like anyone who lives in a fire-prone area must have a fire plan, mediators should have a behaviour contingency plan to address such issues in a mediation. Two of the cornerstone values of mediation are to offer a process that is fair and impartial. The same two values are arguably the most fundamental reasons for developing a behaviour plan. To attain such fairness and impartiality, it is essential to restrain the mediator’s decisions made in the moment and instead, defer to a set of behavioural criteria which were established prior to commencing the mediation process.10 A well-drafted behaviour plan should be clear and based on objective evidence. Such a plan should include guidance on how to address problematic behaviours with relevant reflective questions.  Another strategy is to assess the said behaviour based on universal criteria. This includes asking what the general criteria is for when this specific type of behaviour is a problem (instead of singling out people or their personalities as the problem).11

    Some resources for making a behaviour plan are available at www.biasresistantcourts.org and as part of the paper, Ending the Epidemic of Accidental Personality Disorder Discrimination by Well-Meaning Mediators, accessible at https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2024/iss1/5/

    4:  Never screen out parties based on guesses or knowledge that they may have a mental impairment

    If you have to decline service to anyone, ensure it is not based on guesses they have some kind of impairment like the so-called “high conflict” mental impairments described above – and that it is not based on race, sexual orientation or any other protected identity characteristic.  Avoid declining service to anyone and – if you must – use consistent, behaviour-based protocols.

    5:  Refrain from writing someone off as unchangeable or not worth discussing emotions with

    It is important, as a practitioner, to keep an open mind about how one ensures the process is inclusive of all parties –and to also model this when one party writes another off.  Practitioners should ideally, as part of their process, encourage the party who wrote another off to explain/explore why they did so and – if possible – engage in a dialogue with the party they wrote off.  The aim for the practitioner is to help the parties understand one another’s behaviours, to improve the communication between the parties, and encourage them to connect instead of writing each other off.

    Parties may still write one another off based on their own biases, but the hope is that the ADR practitioner’s process will provide some support and clarity to assist parties to see that the practitioner, at least, modeled inclusivity and transparency and demonstrated consistent open-minded responses to challenging behaviours (while also having clear, consistent boundaries).

    Conclusion

    Challenging behaviour can be so distressing that it often becomes tempting to assume some people are, themselves, the culprit and place them in a different category.  Instead of writing anyone off, dispute resolution professionals can rely on consistent, impartial approaches that are accessible and empowering for all parties.

    Additional resources for managing practitioner distress and planning for challenging behaviors can be accessed from the Demystifying Distress program co-sponsored by the Mental Health Safe Project, Mediate.com, the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR), the Academy for Professional Family Mediators (APFM), the National Association for Community Mediation (NAFCM), and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR). It is viewable at https://mediate.com/demystifying-distress

    Author Biography

    Dr Özlem Sűsler is a graduate of the University of Melbourne and La Trobe University. She holds degrees in Arts, Education and Law and has been admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

    Özlem is a senior lecturer at La Trobe University, School of Law, where she coordinates and teaches ADR and Contract Law in the JD and LLB programmes. She is the immediate past director of the JD Programme. Dr Susler has researched and published internationally on ADR in the fields of international commercial arbitration and the scholarship of learning and teaching. More recently she has conducted qualitative research into the experience of Autistic persons engaging in ADR processes (publication forthcoming). Dr Susler has also played a key role in coaching La Trobe Law students in various ADR Mooting competitions. She is a graduate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Australian Institute of Company Directors and an AMDRAS accredited mediator.

    Dan Berstein is a mediator living with bipolar disorder who uses conflict resolution best practices to promote empowering mental health communication and prevent mental illness discrimination.  His company, MH Mediate, has helped thousands of professionals and organizations be empowering, accessible, and non-discriminatory toward people with disclosed or suspected mental health problems.  Dan holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and the Wharton School.  He is the author of the 2022 book, Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment.

    1. Berstein, D., Diamond, H., & Yanos, P. T. (2024). Ending the Epidemic of Accidental Personality Disorder Discrimination by Well-Meaning Mediators. J. Disp. Resol., 1; See also Hardy, Samantha (2023). CRITICAL REFLECTION: High Conflict Personalities. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/posts/samantha-hardy-3695b97a_critical-reflection-high-conflict-personalities-activity-7116897553840832513-VTHx/ ↩︎
    2. Resolution Institute (2023). New Ways for Mediation A Breakthrough Approach for Managing High Conflict Disputes. Retrieved from: https://resolution.institute/eventdetail?eventkey=bewau22923. Teaching “managing high conflict individuals” with a “new approach to mediating their disputes“ – an approach “based on Bill’s book Mediating High Conflict Disputes”: Chapter 1 of this book, “Understanding High Conflict Personalities,” says “People with high conflict personalities often have personality disorders” and Chapter 3, “The Four Fuhgeddaboudits (What NOT to Do),” teaches practitioners to avoid certain things with so-called high conflict people regarded as having high conflict personalities. ↩︎
    3. Council of Australasian Tribunals (2022).  Working Effectively With High Conflict People. Retrieved from https://coat.asn.au/resources-library/?fwp_resources_search=working%20effectively%20with%20high%20conflict%20people ↩︎
    4. State Government of Victoria State Services Authority (2011).  Dealing With High Conflict Behaviours.  Retrieved from https://vpsc.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dealing-with-High-Conflict-Behaviours-WEB.pdf ↩︎
    5. Queensland Law Society (2020). De-escalation techniques: Addressing high-conflict personalities (part 1).  Retrieved from https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2020/11/de-escalation-techniques-to-address-high-conflict-personalities/ ↩︎
    6. Australian Family Lawyer (2024). Dealing With Difficult People And Behaviours. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fls-family-law-section_afl-highlight-accredited-family-law-specialist-activity-7242013602914713601-3-dx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop; Reposted from https://www.shepherdsfamilylaw.com.au/site2018/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Dealing-with-difficult-people-3.pdf and also reposted at https://ramsdenfamilylaw.com.au/strategies-for-dealing-with-difficult-people-in-family-law-proceedings/ ↩︎
    7. Shepherds Family Law. Working Effectively With High Conflict People.  Retrieved from http://www.shepherdsfamilylaw.com.au/working-with-high-conflict-people/ ↩︎
    8. Divorce and Separation Hub (2022). Are you negotiating a ‘High Conflict’ personality? Retrieved from https://www.divorceandseparationhub.com/2022/07/15/bill-eddy-high-conflict-institute/ ↩︎
    9. See e.g. The University of Newcastle, Australia. High Conflict in Law. Retrieved from https://www.newcastle.edu.au/study/online-learning/high-conflict-in-law-personality-disorders-disputes/about-this-course/content; Monash University. LAW7485 – Managing high conflict personalities in legal disputes. Retrieved from https://www3.monash.edu/pubs/2014handbooks/units/LAW7485.html. ↩︎
    10. Berstein, D, (2022) ‘Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment’ ABA, 153. ↩︎
    11. Berstein, D, (2022) ‘Mental Health and Conflicts: A Handbook for Empowerment’ ABA, 158. ↩︎