IS MEDIATION APPROPRIATE IN FAMILY LAW SITUATIONS INVOLVING INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE?
By Brooke Dash, Law Student | April 7, 2026
With the oversight of Timothy Henderson
Mediation is an important and useful alternative to litigation and our traditional adversarial court process when it comes to settling disputes. It allows for confidentiality and for decisions to be tailored to individual needs, and it is often more constructive and more cost-effective. It can also give parties more direct control over their situation. Through the use of mediation, vulnerable people going through some of the toughest moments of their life may have the opportunity to get their voice and power back. That being said, intimate partner violence (IPV) can throw a wrench into all of the benefits mediation seems to offer. Is mediation an appropriate form of dispute resolution in situations where IPV is present?
MEDIATION FOR IPV SITUATIONS
Asking vulnerable people to sit in a room together and come to an agreement will always be tough, especially when one of those people is the victim of IPV and is required to face their abuser. One concern is how the abuse will affect the ability of a victim to speak safely, freely and confidently, without power imbalances that may lead to an unfair outcome. However, it’s worth noting that a 2016 study found that there was no significant difference in the perception of safety between parties who were victims of IPV and those who were not. The researchers compared the responses between victims and non-victims and found that the majority in each group agreed that they would not have felt any safer going to court as compared to mediation. In both a courtroom and a mediation setting, both parties would likely be facing each other and, arguably, a victim may have more sense of control in a mediation setting.
Another concern is power imbalances or the fear of duress that would mean that the IPV victim would not be able to participate effectively in the mediation process. Interestingly, the same 2016 study found that the majority of both victim and non-victim respondents did not feel this way. The numbers actually showed that more non-victims felt pressure to settle (79%) as compared to victims (70%). The research did find that victims of IPV do have more difficulty saying “no” to their abusers; however, this did not seem to affect their ability to agree and settle overall.
MEDIATORS HAVE A SCREENING ROLE
The mediator’s involvement and approach in the process are critically important. In mediation, the mediator typically meets with each party separately, before meditation starts, collecting all relevant information to the situation at hand and recognizing interpersonal dynamics between the parties. A mediator should consider questions like: Has abuse occurred that has rendered either party incapable of mediating? Will harm come to either party as a result of mediating? Are both parties voluntarily participating in mediation? Can any inequality in bargaining power be managed to make negotiations fair and balanced? Are both parties psychologically ready to mediate?
A mediator has the power to weigh safety concerns and decide which cases may require additional safeguards, and those that may be inappropriate for mediation, on a case-by-case basis.
It’s also important to know that either party in the mediation can end it at any time – and before an agreement is reached – and with no need to provide an explanation for withdrawing from the process, which may help combat coercion. The mediator can also terminate the mediation at any time if they believe one of the parties is not free from coercion or they are not making voluntary decisions.
MEDIATION CAN BE EMPOWERING
For many survivors of IPV, it’s important to them to share their experience. When mediation is a safe way to proceed, it works as an empowerment model that means victims can have a say in the resolution process. It allows victims to face their abuser head on, which may help them move forward. This may be important in enabling them to stand up for themselves, or so that they can continue a working relationship (which is particularly important when the parties must continue to co-parent). Otherwise, the abuser will always be able to take advantage of them. The empowerment that mediation offers may be exactly what a victim needs to do this.
HOW IPV CAN CHANGE THE MEDIATION PROCESS
There are several things that can be done to make victims of IPV feel safer during mediation. Rules can limit the amount of private communication the parties have with each other. Mediation can take place over video conferences, making it harder for parties to coerce one another, as they are not in the same room. They do not even have to look directly at each other.
This is why it is so important that mediators know if IPV is present and what the power dynamics in a relationship are. They can tailor the mediation process to the couple they are working with. There is no one set of rules for mediation and that is why it may be preferable for relationships with IPV present.
Some mediators may agree to “shuttle mediation,” where the parties stay in separate rooms and the mediator moves between the two. This can be complicated and is not the most commonly used method. It presents its own challenges, as each party is not directly aware of what the other is actually saying, or if the mediator is relaying information appropriately. However, it does illustrate that there are alternative ways in which mediation can be offered.
LIMITING ACCESS TO MEDIATION HAS REPERCUSSIONS
Ruling out mediation completely where IPV is present would disproportionately affect women. According to Statistics Canada, in 2021 (the most recent census numbers available), women and girls made up 79% of IPV reported to police. And, women are more likely to face financial insecurity when they leave their abuser. The high cost of litigation may make it difficult for them to seek help and separate from their abusive partner. Mediation is often a less costly route and may be the only option for those who do not have access to their full financial resources. Forcing victims of IPV to opt for litigation may lead them to stay with their abusive partners while they try to get gather the money to pursue it.
Automatically excluding victims of IPV from pursing mediation may create problematic perceptions too, because it assumes that all victims are incapable of fighting for their own best interests. This is a broad assumption that does more harm than good. There are many reasons why IPV takes place, and why victims do not leave the relationship. These reasons have nothing to do with their ability to stand up for themselves, and making these types of assumptions may make victims feel increased distress about their situation.
The litigation process also has drawbacks when comes to IPV victims. For example, one study from 2025 found “that parties in mediation felt safer, less upset, and more positive about their dispute resolution method than did parties in traditional litigation.” Women (specifically mothers) reported negative emotions, including fear, shame and humiliation, and a feeling of powerlessness in the courtroom, in connection to the litigation process.
MAKING A CASE FOR MEDIATION
While concerns about safety and power imbalances must be taken seriously, research demonstrates that, with proper screening and safeguards, mediation can be conducted safely and effectively. The flexibility of mediation allows it to be tailored to the specific needs of the parties involved, fostering a safe and beneficial environment. It can also preserve the benefits of communication and self-determination for victims. Completely excluding victims of IPV from accessing mediation would be inequitable and counterproductive. IPV should be a factor for adaptation of the mediation process, not a barrier to its use.
DISCLAIMER:
This content is provided as a general informational source by Henderson Family Law, and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, or establish a lawyer-client relationship. Every situation is complex and fact-specific, and appropriate advice will vary accordingly. Do not rely on this information for legal decision-making under any circumstances. Please consult with us and obtain proper advice and strategy concerning the specifics of your particular situation.