The ABA and the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) have jointly released the 2025 Revision of the Model Standards for Family and Divorce Mediation. This document replaces the Model Standards adopted in 2000, which have withstood the test of time. Notable in the Revised Standards are some additional topics, such as online dispute resolution and mediating with self-represented parties. The Revision also provides more guidance on dealing with cases where domestic abuse may be involved – including using the term “domestic abuse” instead of “domestic violence,” and adding a standard on “child maltreatment.”

Of special note to Michigan mediators are the ways in which the Revised Standards supplement the Michigan Standards of Conduct for Mediators. Our Standards, adopted in 2012, were based in part on the 2000 Model Standards. I had the privilege of serving on the task force that developed the Standards for Michigan; one of our innovations was to merge the standards for general civil mediators and the standards for domestic relations mediators into one set of standards designed to cover the whole field of mediation. The Michigan Standards do not go into as much detail regarding domestic relations (DR) mediation, so Michigan mediators are well-advised to consult the Revised Model Standards when facing particular issues that arise in DR mediation.

The Revised Model Standards are longer than the 2000 version (and longer than Michigan’s Standards) both because they address some new topics, and because they go into more detail on the topics they address. For example, the need to ensure party self-determination even where parties are unrepresented, and distinguishing this from informed decision-making, receives attention. There is now a separate standard entitled “Technology” that was not mentioned in the 2000 version. (Standard XI) Mediator competence is now defined to include ability to conduct online mediation, and to use technology and understand data security. (Standard XII.A.10 and 11)

One topic that has long challenged mediators is the ethical obligation to assess party capacity to mediate. Mediators have argued that they are not mental health professionals and lack insight into fully assessing party capacity. The Revised Standards include a standard entitled, “Barriers to Participation and Process Modification” to provide more guidance here (Standard IV). While still requiring a mediator to examine party capacity, the inquiry is framed as exploring “barriers to participation,” and effective safeguards and process modifications “tailored to address barriers to meaningful participation in mediation.” The reasons for terminating a mediation no longer include a participant’s “physical or mental condition.” (Standard XI.A.)

The Revised Standards are a welcome addition to the practice of mediation in the U.S.