Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concluding Thoughts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Online Family Dispute Resolution

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 45))

  • 436 Accesses

Abstract

This book has presented the case for the value of integrating technologies into the family law arena particularly within Australian contexts but with clear implications for family dispute resolution (FDR) services worldwide. Online dispute resolution (ODR) has already experienced success across a wide range of other conflicts, with preliminary evidence in the growing field of online family dispute resolution (OFDR) showing favourable outcomes for separating parents. The research presented in this book supports arguments that OFDR increases access to quality FDR services which in turn facilitates child-centered decision-making. This chapter will summarise the lessons learned to-date to inform recommendations for future OFDR program design and improvement. Both ODR and OFDR are relatively young developments in Australia, so the potential of these advanced technologies and their capabilities is yet unknown. Continued rigorous research into existing and future OFDR programs will further improve the field and the outcomes for families, an endeavour that will take the collaboration of many different stakeholders and a commitment to ongoing learning and future-focused change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 10F.

References

  • Ainsworth N, Zeleznikow L, Zeleznikow J (2019) Readiness for online family dispute resolution. Int J Online Disp Resol 6:243–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araszkiewicz M, Łopatkiewicz A, Zienkiewicz A (2013) Parent Plan Support System – context, functions and knowledge base. Paper presented at The International Conference on Business Information Systems Heidelberg, Berlin, Springer, 19-20 June 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Augar N, Zeleznikow J (2014) Developing online support and counseling to enhance family dispute resolution in Australia. Group Decis Negot 23:515–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsky AE (2016) The ethics of app-assisted family mediation. Conflict Resol Q 34:31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci E (2008) AssetDivider: a new mediation tool in Australian family law. In: Proceedings of the First International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 8-9 December 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci E, Lodder AR, Zeleznikow J (2004) Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment. Paper presented at the 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Boca Raton, Florida, 15-17 November

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers JR, Mitchell ET, Hardesty JL, Hughes R Jr (2011) A review of online divorce education programs. Family Court Rev 49:776–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley Tyler M, Bretheron D (2003) Developing an online mediation culture: The fourth generation of online ADR. Paper presented at the 2nd Asia-Pacific Mediation Forum, Singapore, 19-22 November

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen R (2001) Addressing the digital divide. Online Info Rev 25:311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson G, Green K (2001) The external researcher in participatory action research. Educ Action Res 9:243–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebner N, Zeleznikow J (2016) No sheriff in town: governance for the ODR field. Negot J 32:297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field R (1998) Mediation and the art of power (im)balancing. QUT Law J 12:264–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn D (2005) The social worker as family mediator: Balancing power in cases involving family violence. Aust Soc Work 58:407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giglione T (2019) Recent growth and developments on online dispute resolution in Southeast Asia. World Mediation Organisation Conflict Insight. https://worldmediation.org/recent-growth-and-developments-on-online-dispute-resolution-in-southeast-asia/

  • González Martín N (2015) International parental child abduction and mediation. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 15:353–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grillo T (1991) The mediation alternative: process dangers for women. Yale Law J 100:1545–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes SH (1995) Elizabeth’s story: exploring power imbalances in divorce mediation. Georgetown J Leg Ethics 8:553–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Jani S (2012) Mediating from a distance: suggested practice guidelines for family mediators, 2nd edn. MediateBC, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E, Rifkin J (2001) Introducing the fourth party: the critical role of technology. In: Online dispute resolution: resolving conflicts in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 93–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight K, Hunter C (2013) Using technology in service delivery to families, children and young people, no. 17. Child Family Community Australia (CFCA). https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/using-technology-service-delivery-families-children

  • LaMarca J (2012) Virtually possible - using the internet to facilitate custody and parenting beyond relocation. Rutgers Comput Technol Law J 38:146–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson DA (2003) Online dispute resolution: do you know where your children are? Negot J 19:199–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavi D (2014) No more click-click in here: e-mediation in divorce disputes-the reality and the desirable. Cardozo J Conflict Resol 16:479–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodder AR, Zeleznikow J (2012) Artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution. In: Wahab M, Katsh E, Rainey D (eds) Online dispute resolution: theory and practice. Eleven International Publishers, Ten Haag, Netherlands, pp 61–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Markham SK (1998) A longitudinal examination of how champions influence others to support their projects. J Prod Innov Manage 15:490–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson A, Harrison M (2000) Family law and the family court of Australia: experiences of the first 25 years. Melbourne Univ Law Rev 24:757–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson P (2013) The idea of family relationship centres in Australia. Family Court Rev 51:195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearlstein A, Hanson B, Ebner N (2012) ODR in North America. In: Abdel Wahab MS, Katsh E, Rainey D (eds) Online dispute resolution: theory and practice. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 431–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey D (2012) ODR and culture. In: Abdel Wahab MS, Katsh E, Rainey D (eds) Online dispute resolution: theory and practice. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 185–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao S (2004) The cultural vacuum in online dispute resolution. Paper presented at the Third Annual Forum on Online Dispute Resolution

    Google Scholar 

  • Relationships Australia (2011) Development and evaluation of online family dispute resolution capabilities. https://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/OnlineFamilyDisputeResolutionEvaluation.aspx

  • Rimelspach RL (2001) Mediating family disputes in a world with domestic violence: how to devise a safe and effective court-connected mediation program. Ohio State J Disp Resol 17:95–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi FS, Holtzworth-Munroe A, Applegate AG, Beck CJ, Adams JM, Hale DF (2017) Shuttle and online mediation: a review of available re-search and implications for separating couples reporting intimate partner violence or abuse. Family Court Rev 55:390–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz AJ (2019) Expanding access to remedies through E-court initiatives. Buffalo Law Rev 67:89–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz AJ, Wing L (2020) Beneficial and ethical ODR for family issues. Fam Court Rev. Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Schramm DG, McCaulley G (2012) Divorce education for parents: a comparison of online and in-person delivery methods. J Divorce Remarriage 53:602–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sela A (2017) The effect of online technologies on dispute resolution system design: antecedents, current trends, and future directions. Lewis Clark Law Rev 21:635–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Sela A (2019) e-Nudging justice: the role of digital choice architecture in online courts. J Disp Resol 2:128–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin T, Zeleznikow J (2020) Courts, mediation and COVID-19. Aust Bus Law Rev 48(2):138–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait C (2013) Evaluation of the Distance Family Mediation Project: report on Phase III of the technology-assisted family mediation project, MediateBC, Canada. http://www.mediatebc.com/about-mediation/mediating-at-a-distance.aspx

  • Thomson M (2009) Annual report of the telephone dispute resolution service to the attorney general. Relationships Australia, Queensland

    Google Scholar 

  • Ver Steegh N (2003) Yes, no, and maybe: informed decision making about divorce mediation in the presence of domestic violence. William Mary J Woman Law 9:145–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodlock D (2016) The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women 23:584–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow J (2004) The split-up project: induction, context and knowledge discovery in law. Law. Probab Risk 3:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Elisabeth Wilson-Evered

  2. Law School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    John Zeleznikow

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Wilson-Evered
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Zeleznikow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wilson-Evered, E., Zeleznikow, J. (2021). Concluding Thoughts. In: Online Family Dispute Resolution. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64645-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64645-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-64644-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-64645-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation