AFCC’s Standards on Mediation Draft Falls Short on Domestic Violence: Survivors Deserve More Than “Neutrality”

If mediation is to be truly equitable, it must first be safe.

Abstract

As the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) prepares to finalize its 2025 Draft Model Standards for Family & Divorce Mediation, it faces growing scrutiny from survivors, advocates, and legal reformers. While the AFCC claims to prioritize fairness, safety, and family well-being, the current draft fails to take a meaningful stance on cases involving domestic violence and coercive control.

This article examines the systemic and legal shortcomings of the proposed standards — including the unchecked discretion of mediators, the illusion of self-determination for trauma-impacted survivors, and the dangerous consequences of allowing mediation when only one party is unrepresented. We also explore how the draft fails to adequately protect children from manipulation when their voices are included in high-conflict cases.

Our critique is grounded in trauma-informed research, existing coercive control laws (such as Connecticut’s § 46b-15 and California’s Senate Bill 1141), and survivor-informed recommendations that AFCC must adopt if it hopes to restore legitimacy to the mediation process.

Introduction

When it comes to mediating high-conflict family disputes, particularly those involving domestic violence, neutrality can become dangerous. Unfortunately, the latest draft of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Model Standards for Family & Divorce Mediation (March 2025) fails to offer the clear, trauma-informed protections survivors desperately need.

Despite claiming to promote fairness, safety, and informed decision-making, the AFCC's proposed standards fall back on vague language and excessive mediator discretion—effectively prioritizing procedural efficiency over the well-being of abuse survivors and their children.

Let’s break down where the draft misses the mark—and what must change.

1. Still Allowing Mediation in Abuse Cases?

The most glaring issue is that the draft permits mediators to proceed with cases involving domestic abuse, if they believe process modifications (like safety planning or shuttle mediation) will suffice.

But abuse—especially coercive control—is not just about physical violence. It’s about dominance, intimidation, and psychological manipulation. A survivor may “consent” to mediation out of fear, not free will. Framing such consent as "self-determination" reflects a profound misunderstanding of trauma. When power imbalances are entrenched, mediation cannot be truly voluntary.

What should be done instead: The standards must include mandatory exclusion provisions for cases involving:

• Active protective orders

• Substantiated coercive control

• Documented abuse patterns

Mediation should only proceed in such cases when both parties are represented, a trauma-informed facilitator is involved, and the survivor freely consents.

2. Mediators Are Not Trauma Experts — So Why Are They the Gatekeepers?

One of the most troubling flaws in the AFCC’s draft standards is how much unchecked discretion is placed in the hands of individual mediators when domestic abuse is present. Under the current proposal, mediators are responsible for screening for abuse, assessing whether “process modifications” can ensure safety, and ultimately deciding whether the mediation should move forward — all without independent oversight.

At first glance, this may appear efficient or even reasonable. After all, mediators are trained professionals, right?

But here’s the problem: even well-trained mediators are not trauma clinicians, nor are they immune to systemic bias. Most mediators are not licensed mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, or forensic specialists. Expecting them to single-handedly recognize nuanced forms of abuse — especially coercive control, which often leaves no physical trace — is both unrealistic and irresponsible.

Abuse is often invisible — and easily misinterpreted

Domestic abuse doesn’t always look like bruises and emergency calls. It can be subtle, psychological, and expertly hidden — especially from outsiders. Abusers are often charming in public, manipulative behind closed doors, and deeply skilled at controlling the narrative. Mediators, despite their training, may be fooled or influenced by surface-level presentations and power dynamics they don’t fully understand.

In many jurisdictions, mediators are paid per session. This creates a conflict of interest: the same person who benefits financially from continuing mediation is the one deciding whether it's appropriate to proceed in cases involving abuse. Even with good intentions, the risk for unconscious bias or poor judgment is significant.

This is not a theoretical concern. Survivors have reported being pressured into continuing mediation even after disclosing fear or abuse. Some are told that the process can be made "safe" through shuttle mediation or having a support person present — yet the emotional and psychological imbalance remains.

The current model lacks oversight

There’s no requirement for external review of a mediator’s decision to proceed in high-risk cases. No secondary screening by a trauma-informed expert. No mandatory consultation with domestic violence advocates or mental health professionals. This effectively creates a system where survivors must trust that one person — often a stranger — will correctly identify complex abuse dynamics and make the right call.

Would we allow a single nurse to independently diagnose and operate on a life-threatening illness without consulting a surgeon or specialist? Of course not. And yet we allow mediators to "diagnose" abuse suitability in family law cases that can determine a child’s future, a survivor’s safety, and a family’s trajectory for decades to come.

What Needs to Change:

1. Create an Independent Abuse Screening Process
   Before any mediation involving abuse allegations can proceed, the case should be reviewed by a trauma-informed advisory panel or independent advocate. This team could include licensed mental health professionals, domestic violence counselors, or legal experts with DV experience — not just the mediator.

2. Require Mandatory Consultation in High-Risk Cases
   In any case where abuse is disclosed or suspected — especially where coercive control, stalking, or prior protective orders are involved — mediation should not proceed until a neutral, trauma-trained professional confirms that all parties can safely and freely participate.

3. Remove Financial Incentives from Mediation Eligibility Decisions
   Mediators should not financially benefit from continuing to mediate a case where safety is in question. States or agencies should explore separating the abuse-screening process from the mediation provider entirely.

Bottom Line:

Empowering mediators to make unilateral decisions about abuse thresholds is not just a procedural error — it’s a human rights issue. The AFCC’s current draft, while well-meaning, fails to address this fundamental flaw. Survivors deserve more than the hope that their mediator will “get it right.”

They deserve a system built with guardrails — not just goodwill.

3. “Self-Determination” Can Mask Trauma Responses — And the Law Already Recognizes That

The AFCC standards proudly uphold party self-determination as a pillar of ethical mediation. According to the draft, mediators must ensure that participants are informed, voluntary decision-makers throughout the process.

But in cases involving coercive control — a form of psychological abuse marked by manipulation, surveillance, and fear — this principle is easily weaponized. It allows survivors to be railroaded into agreements that appear voluntary, but are in fact trauma-coerced. Courts and mediators alike often overlook this reality, despite the fact that the law is catching up.

The Law Already Recognizes Coercive Control as Abuse

In Connecticut, coercive control is not just a concept — it’s codified law. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15, courts may issue protective orders not only for physical violence but also for a “pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating acts” that strip away autonomy.

Connecticut General Statutes § 46b-15 (2021 Revision) defines coercive control as “a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.”

This includes tactics like:

• Monitoring communications or movements,

• Isolating a person from friends, family, or support,

• Threatening harm (to children, pets, or property),

• Controlling financial access or legal resources.

These forms of abuse aren’t “conflict.” They are deliberate tools of domination. And no amount of mediation process design can erase the power imbalance they create.

Other states are following suit:

• California’s Senate Bill 1141 (effective January 1, 2021) amended Family Code § 6320 to include coercive control as a form of domestic violence. This allows for restraining orders where a partner exerts dominance without laying a hand on the victim.

• Hawaii and Washington have introduced or passed legislation expanding domestic violence definitions to include patterns of psychological and emotional abuse.

• New York’s Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act recognizes that trauma can impair a person’s judgment and responses to conflict — even after abuse ends.

These statutes acknowledge that trauma doesn't stop at the mediation table — and often, it becomes invisible there.

Trauma Isn’t Always Loud — It’s Often Compliant

Trauma responses don’t always show up as yelling or resistance. Often, they look like quiet compliance. Survivors may:

• Avoid eye contact.

• Numb themselves emotionally.

• Agree to unfavorable terms just to get out of the room.

This is especially true for mothers facing threats to custody. Saying "yes" in mediation can feel safer than saying "no" — even if that yes puts their children at risk. Courts and mediators must understand that “agreement” is not the same as informed consent when trauma is in play.

Yet, the AFCC draft fails to provide:

• A working definition of trauma-coerced consent,

• Statutory alignment with coercive control laws,

• Guidance for when a survivor's “choice” may be shaped by fear, not free will.

Legal and Ethical Reforms Needed:

1. Incorporate Legal Definitions of Coercive Control

   • Model standards should explicitly reference Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-15, CA Family Code § 6320, and similar statutes.

   • They must define coercive control as a disqualifying factor unless rigorous safety, advocacy, and consent criteria are met.

2. Define “Informed, Uncoerced Consent”

   • Borrow from existing statutory language. For example:

“Consent must be based on free will, unimpeded by fear, threats, isolation, intimidation, or manipulation.”

2. Include requirements that survivors understand their legal rights, available resources, and the consequences of mediation outcomes — before agreeing to proceed.

3. Mandate Trauma-Informed Participation Reviews

   • For any case involving coercive control or trauma allegations, require review by a mental health or DV professional to determine if consent can truly be considered voluntary and informed.

4. Require Survivor Representation or Support

   • In jurisdictions that recognize coercive control in law, mediation should not proceed unless survivors are represented by counsel or supported by a trauma-informed advocate.

Final Word:

The legal system already acknowledges that abuse can be invisible. The AFCC must catch up. To speak of “self-determination” without addressing trauma is not neutrality — it’s negligence. By embedding the legal definitions of coercive control and trauma-coerced consent into the standards, AFCC can protect survivors from being retraumatized under the guise of fairness.

Because consent without safety isn’t justice — it’s coercion in a nicer font.

4. When Only One Party Has a Lawyer, Mediation Is Not Neutral — It’s a Power Play

Family court mediation is often portrayed as a peaceful alternative to litigation — a place where both parents can negotiate in good faith to resolve custody, financial, and relational disputes. But when only one party has legal representation, the table is already tilted.

The current AFCC draft standards acknowledge this imbalance, but do not require mediators to stop the process. Instead, they advise that mediators “consider power disparities” when one party lacks counsel.

Let’s be clear: in abuse-flagged cases, this is not merely a disparity — it’s a structural risk to justice.

The Myth of the “Neutral” Mediator

Mediators are taught to be neutral — to not take sides, to avoid giving legal advice, and to guide the process with balanced facilitation. But neutrality, in the face of power asymmetry, often leads to injustice. In cases where:

• One party has an attorney,

• The other is a survivor of domestic violence with no legal training,

• The stakes involve custody, safety, or financial security...

... neutrality becomes passivity. And passivity, in this context, enables abuse by omission.

The AFCC draft seems to believe that a trained mediator can “balance the scales.” But this is a dangerous overestimation of what mediation can do — and an underestimation of how easily an attorney (particularly one representing an abuser) can steer, control, or manipulate the process.

When One Side Knows the System and the Other Fears It

Survivors who represent themselves — often pro se mothers escaping abuse — are at a critical disadvantage. They may:

• Struggle with legal language and procedures,

• Be overwhelmed or intimidated during sessions,

• Feel pressure to agree out of fear they will appear “uncooperative” to the court.

Meanwhile, the represented party (often the abuser) can:

• Use legal jargon and strategy to dominate the session,

• Introduce complex proposals the survivor doesn’t understand,

• Frame the survivor’s hesitation as resistance or instability.

This imbalance is exacerbated by trauma. Survivors experiencing PTSD, anxiety, or dissociation are less able to process information, advocate clearly, or challenge injustice in the moment. The absence of legal support turns every mediation session into a silent battleground where one party holds the weapons — and the other holds the consequences.

Legal Context: Right to Counsel vs. Reality

While U.S. family law does not guarantee a constitutional right to legal representation in civil or family court (unlike in criminal proceedings), many jurisdictions acknowledge the harm that occurs when survivors face abusers in legal settings without support.

For example:

• California's Family Code § 6306 requires that courts ensure domestic violence survivors understand their rights — and can appoint support persons during proceedings.

• Connecticut Practice Book § 25-61 allows judges to appoint guardians ad litem (GALs) for children, but leaves survivor support unmandated.

• New York's Family Court Act § 262 allows for appointed counsel in certain family offense proceedings, but not always in mediation.

Despite these partial protections, mediation remains a legal grey zone, where survivors often have no representation, no voice, and no recourse when the process fails them.

What Needs to Change:

1. Mandate Representation or Advocacy in Abuse-Flagged Cases
   Mediation should not proceed in cases where abuse has been disclosed unless both parties:

   • Are represented by legal counsel, or

   • Have access to court-appointed advocates or certified domestic violence support professionals.

2. Integrate Support Persons Into the Mediation Process
   The standards should require mediators to pause or terminate sessions if the unrepresented party appears overwhelmed, confused, or coerced. Survivors must be allowed to bring support persons — not as observers, but as participants who help interpret, advocate, and stabilize the process.

3. Limit Legal Negotiation When Only One Party is Represented
   In unbalanced representation scenarios, mediation should focus only on immediate, safety-focused issues (like supervised visitation schedules or temporary housing) — not final custody, parenting plans, or asset division. These matters should be deferred to court until equity is restored.

4. Require Documentation of Consent and Understanding
   Mediators should be required to document that both parties fully understood all terms — especially the unrepresented survivor — and provide a plain-language summary of any agreement. Without this safeguard, any outcome risks becoming a legally binding extension of abuse.

Final Word:

When the AFCC standards allow a legally trained abuser to negotiate against an unrepresented survivor in the name of "efficiency," what they’re really promoting is institutional gaslighting.

The idea that a fair agreement can emerge from such a lopsided setup defies logic — and the lived reality of survivors across the country.

If AFCC truly believes in equity, safety, and meaningful consent, it must recognize that representation is not optional when trauma and abuse are part of the equation. Otherwise, what we call “mediation” is just coercion in conference-room clothing.

5. Child-Centered Standards Aren’t Enough Without Safeguards Against Manipulation

The AFCC draft standards commendably emphasize the importance of including children’s voices in mediation. They reference the need for child-sensitive practices, consultation with parents, and possible involvement of court-appointed professionals like Guardians ad Litem (GALs).

But here’s the reality: in high-conflict or abusive family systems, a child’s “voice” can be a product of fear, manipulation, or coercion — not self-expression.

Without clear protections, inviting children into the mediation process can re-traumatize them or entangle them in adult conflict, particularly when one parent is using them as a pawn in a power struggle.

Children Are Not Neutral Witnesses in Abuse Cases

In families where coercive control, emotional abuse, or alienation is present, children often become:

• Messengers between parents,

• Emotional caretakers for the abusive parent,

• Targets of parental pressure to "choose sides",

• Parrots of language and accusations they don’t understand.

An abusive or narcissistic parent may:

• Coach the child on what to say during interviews or mediation,

• Threaten consequences if the child speaks favorably about the other parent,

• Reward compliance with affection, gifts, or approval.

These children may appear composed and articulate. They may express preferences that seem sincere. But under the surface, they are navigating survival. And without specialized training, mediators are not equipped to distinguish authenticity from trauma-induced compliance.

What the Research Says

Studies from trauma-informed researchers and child psychologists consistently warn against the premature or unstructured inclusion of children in contested custody disputes — especially where domestic violence is alleged.

• A 2022 report from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges noted that “unsafely involving children in custody proceedings may lead to increased loyalty conflicts, trauma symptoms, and long-term relational harm.”

• The Domestic Abuse and Family Court Report (UK, 2021) found that in over 50% of contested custody cases involving abuse, child participation led to additional manipulation by the abusive parent.

In these cases, the child’s expressed preference often echoed the abuser’s narrative — not because they agreed, but because they were afraid not to.

The Gaps in the AFCC Draft

The AFCC’s Standard X encourages child-inclusive practices but does not:

• Require child interviews to be conducted by trained child development specialists,

• Mandate trauma screening prior to involving the child,

• Prohibit direct child involvement in known abuse cases without thorough risk assessments,

• Establish any process for verifying the authenticity or voluntariness of a child’s input.

Instead, the draft offers vague reassurances about “considering the child’s voice,” leaving open the possibility that even in abuse-flagged cases, a child might be interviewed — or worse, used as evidence in favor of the abusive parent’s case.

What Needs to Change:

1. Mandate Use of Trained Child Specialists Only
   Children’s voices should only be engaged in mediation through professionals specifically trained in:

   • Child development,

   • Family systems,

   • Trauma psychology,

   • Coercive control dynamics.

This is already best practice in many trauma-informed models. It must become standard.

2. Prohibit Child Inclusion in Active Abuse Cases (Unless Representation is Provided)
   Where domestic abuse or coercive control is alleged, the child should not participate in mediation unless:

   • They are represented by an independent Guardian ad Litem (GAL), child advocate, or therapist,

   • All parties agree in writing that the process is appropriate,

   • The child is emotionally ready, and the risk of manipulation is independently assessed.

3. Require Written Verification of Voluntary and Informed Child Participation
   Before including a child’s statements in any mediation agreement or report, professionals should:

   • Document who facilitated the child’s participation,

   • Confirm the setting was safe and private,

   • Detail how coercion was ruled out.

Without this, children’s voices may be mistaken for agency — when in fact, they are echoes of fear.

4. Adopt Trauma-Informed Standards from National Guidelines
   The AFCC can look to models like:

   • NCJFCJ’s Enhanced Resource Guidelines (2022),

   • American Academy of Pediatrics’ child maltreatment protocols,

   • Connecticut’s GAL standards, which caution against over-involvement of children in high-conflict cases.

Final Word:

A truly child-centered mediation process doesn’t just listen to the child. It protects the child from becoming collateral in adult conflict — especially when abuse is in the room, whether visible or not.

The AFCC’s draft, while well-intentioned, leaves a gaping hole where trauma-informed child protections should be. It’s not enough to say “include children carefully.” We must say: include them ethically, safely, and only when they are truly free to speak.

Until then, child-inclusive mediation risks becoming just another tool for abusers to rewrite the narrative — this time, in the voice of the child.

Conclusion: Safety Is Not Optional — It's the Standard That Must Be Set

The AFCC's 2025 Draft Model Standards for Family & Divorce Mediation aim to modernize the field, emphasizing diversity, equity, and child-centered processes. But when it comes to the most urgent issue — the systemic failure to protect survivors of domestic violence and their children — the standards remain disturbingly silent where they should be firm, and discretionary where they must be non-negotiable.

Across each section of the draft, the same pattern emerges: abuse survivors are expected to navigate a process designed for equals, while facing conditions rooted in fear, power imbalances, and trauma. The standards lean heavily on the ideals of self-determination, neutrality, and voluntary consent — but nowhere do they meaningfully address what happens when those ideals are structurally unattainable.

Let’s be clear:

• Self-determination means nothing without safety.

• Consent means nothing if shaped by coercion.

• Neutrality means nothing when one party is armed with counsel and the other is alone and afraid.

• Listening to children means nothing if we don’t first protect them from being manipulated into speaking someone else’s truth.

The AFCC has the opportunity — and the responsibility — to lead the field into a trauma-informed future. But that requires moving beyond aspirational language and embracing enforceable standards that reflect both clinical best practices and the evolving legal landscape.

Laws in Connecticut, California, Hawaii, and other states are already recognizing coercive control and psychological abuse as legitimate and urgent threats. Survivors and advocates across the country are demanding that mediation no longer be treated as a one-size-fits-all solution — especially in cases where it becomes a tool for continued control and silencing.

If the AFCC truly wants to serve families, it must start by serving the most vulnerable among them. That means:

• Mandatory exclusion of abuse-flagged cases from mediation unless strict safeguards are met,

• Independent oversight in abuse screening and suitability assessments,

• Required legal representation or advocacy for unrepresented survivors,

• A trauma-informed definition of consent rooted in reality, not theory,

• And child participation protocols that place protection above perception.

Anything less perpetuates the status quo — one where survivors are retraumatized, children are silenced, and justice is sacrificed on the altar of efficiency.

The stakes are too high for this draft to go forward without bold revisions. The AFCC must stop treating abuse as a challenge to be mediated and start recognizing it as a line that must not be crossed.

Because if mediation is to be truly equitable, it must first be safe.