All FDRP's are qualified but not all FDRP's are experienced.

According to the Australian Government Attorney-General's website, a family dispute resolution (FDR) practitioner is an independent person who helps people affected by separation or divorce to resolve their parenting disputes.

To be called an FDR practitioner, an applicant must meet the accreditation standards in the Family Law ( Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008.

Once accredited, a practitioner is required to meet specific obligations under the Regulations.

As with all occupations, qualifications don't always equate to experience.

The ranks of FDR practioners contain a wide range of mediators with diverse backgrounds and experience.

Some, particularly those with a background in the social sciences and therapy have many years of client contact and experience over the full array of interpersonal disputes and conflict resolution.

Others offer many years of mediation experience and  understanding of the nuances and subtleties of relationships.

I am reminded of the answer I was once  given from the highly skilled wood turner when I asked how long it had taken him to make the magnificent cedar cabinet complete with multiple pieces of inlaid glass. Without hesitating, the craftsman responded, " forty hours and forty years".

The benefit of experience gives practitioners an insight into people and relationships that a less experienced practitioner cannot be expected to have. 

Experience also gives practitioners the confidence and perspective to "tell it as it is", rather than tell parties what they want to hear.

Parties are well advised to consider the experience and background of mediators when choosing a FDR Practioner.

At Brisbane Mediations, all of our FDRP's are not only qualified but offer a wide background of talent and experience.

What could be more important than working out the future arrangement for your children after separation. 

Perceptions and Stories

Eric and Fran are in conflict.

They've always had a hard time working together, but lately the frustration and tension has spilled over to colleagues and family members on each side.

Fran catches you first, her story emerging in messy, manic detail. Eric, she claims, is acting unreasonably. He is incompetent and he is being childish.You know you are only hearing Fran's side of things, but still, you have a hard time imagining how Eric could explain his behaviour. It seems inexcusable, and you tell Fran she is right to be so upset.

Eric calls you later that day. He says he doesn't want to speak ill of Fran, but demands that you hear his version of what happened. You listen, as Eric describes what "really happened, " and you soon find yourself confused. Eric, it seems, is the real victim here. You try to resist the urge to take Eric's side, but give in: "you are right to be so upset, you tell him.

Moments later, you get an email from a mutual friend, who asks if you know anything about what is going on between Eric and Fran. " I've spoken to both of them," you write, and then realize that you simply haven't figured out how to reconcile what you've heard so far. You know both Fran and Eric well enough to know that neither is lying, or even intentionally shading the truth.And yet their descriptions of the dispute could not be more different.

The Brain as a Story-Based System

What's going on? Artificial intelligence researcher Roger Schank puts it well: "Human memory is story-based." Far from simply reflecting or recording reality, our minds engage in a complex interplay between what we perceive and what we already know, unconsciously adding and deleting information in the service of the story. Disputes occur when the stories we tell about what's happening-who's right,what's fair, who's to blame-diverge.Each side retreats to their own narrative which describes their experience of "reality," and the dispute intensifies.

Extracted from Heen & Stone" Perceptions and Stories"; The Negotiator's Fieldbook at p 343.