Module 7 — Page 14 of 24

4: Practical Example

Scenario
Continuing with the family mediation session, Sophie reflects on the underlying reasons behind the events. Alex became frustrated, interrupted Jordan repeatedly, and temporarily left the room. Jordan responded defensively, folding arms and avoiding eye contact. Sophie felt anxious and frustrated but maintained neutrality and used active listening. While some progress was made on parenting arrangements, challenges arose due to unequal participation and extended session length.

In Supervision
When asked to analyse the session, Sophie considers the factors shaping outcomes:

“On reflection, Alex’s frustration may have stemmed from feeling unheard in past discussions outside mediation. My early focus on procedure might have reinforced that perception, contributing to the outburst and temporary withdrawal. Jordan’s defensive posture was likely a response to repeated interruptions and rising tension. My own anxiety made me hesitate to enforce turn-taking, which allowed interruptions to continue longer than ideal. Overall, the dynamics reflected a mix of past conflicts, participant emotions, and my own internal responses.”

Key aspects of Sophie’s analysis


Insights and Takeaways

For FDR practitioners, analysis aligns with obligations under the Family Law Act 1975 and the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2025 to remain neutral, manage power dynamics, and reflect on professional practice for continuous improvement.


Key Attributes of Effective Analysis


Example Takeaways for Supervisees

Supervisor Prompt
“What do you think were the main factors influencing Alex’s and Jordan’s responses, and how might your interventions have changed the outcome?”

Reflective Question for Learners
When analysing your own mediations, do you focus only on what happened, or do you also explore why it happened? How could deeper analysis improve your practice?