Safeguarding Self-Determination in Family Mediation: Ethical Challenges of Power Imbalance and Violence

The paper explores the ethical dilemmas in family mediation with particular focus on issues of power imbalance and domestic violence. Mediation is presented as a voluntary process grounded in party autonomy and self-determination, yet the study reveals that disparities in resources, knowledge, cultural background, and emotional capacity often undermine these foundational principles. The scope of analysis is broad, examining both structural imbalances - such as financial inequality, legal representation, and informational asymmetry - and personal dynamics, including fear, persuasion, or moral superiority, that may distort the exercise of free will. The discussion situates these challenges within comparative ethical frameworks, referencing the Georgian Law on Mediation, the Code of Ethics for Mediators, and the U.S. Model Standards of Conduct. A central conclusion is that not every imbalance of power justifies the termination of mediation. Instead, termination should remain an ultima ratio, employed only when the mediator’s strategic interventions cannot restore equality of conditions. The study highlights various tools available to mediators, including private caucuses, involvement of independent professionals, and structured questioning, which may help mitigate imbalances and preserve informed decision-making. However, the presence of violence introduces a distinct and non-negotiable ethical threshold. The research emphasizes that mediation cannot proceed when fear, intimidation, or abuse deprive a party of genuine autonomy. In such contexts, confidentiality is limited by overriding duties to protect health, life, and the best interests of the child. Ultimately, the paper argues that mediators are not passive facilitators but bear a dual responsibility: to uphold neutrality and impartiality, while also safeguarding the ethical integrity of the process. By balancing these obligations, mediation can remain both a credible and ethically defensible alternative to adjudication.