Nuanced Neutrality

I began my professional mediation career as a purist. Fresh out of law school, stepping into the world of mediation, I carried with me a rigid doctrine instilled by my training: neutrality above all. I had been taught by a proud, pure, facilitative organization, one that viewed the facilitative model not as one framework among many, but as gospel. The mediator, I was taught, was to be a neutral third party, facilitating the process but never imposing, never advocating, never inserting their own expertise in ways that could shape an outcome.[^1]

At first, this approach felt both elegant and intellectually satisfying. It was mediation not only in its “purest” form, but also its most effective (or so I was led to believe). My role, as I understood it, was to help disputants communicate, clarify their interests, and reach their own agreements without any interference from me.

But as I shifted into predominantly divorce and co-parenting mediation, doubts began to form in my rigid commitment to neutrality—doubts that deepened with every case involving children.[^2]

Coming Full Circle from Student to Teacher

My journey as a mediator took a meaningful turn when I was invited back to the University of Minnesota Law School to teach the very same mediation clinic that first got me hooked on this work. I had once sat in those students’ seats, absorbing mediation in a way that wasn’t merely a method but the method. Facilitation wasn’t just the preferred approach of the clinic’s sponsor—it was presented as the gold standard, the best way to mediate.

But by the time I returned as an instructor, I had spent years in the trenches—mediating real divorces, navigating real conflicts, and seeing firsthand that a rigidly facilitative approach simply wasn’t enough. Especially when it came to children.

So I did something I wish had been done for me: I introduced my students to a broader view.

I still taught them the facilitative model—that was, after all, the official stance of the sponsoring organization of the clinic. But I also made sure to disclaim that this was just one aspect of how “real” mediators mediate, not the whole picture. I didn’t want them to leave with the same limited ground-level perspective I had once held, falsely believing in some pseudo-hierarchy of mediation models at the top of which sat the facilitative one. Instead, I encouraged them to look at mediation from a higher altitude, to see the gestalt of the various models, and I introduced them to a concept that had reshaped my own thinking: Strategic Mediation.

Strategic Mediation: The Missing Thread

By the time I had been mediating for about four or five years, I came across a talk that pulled everything together for me: Donald Saposnek’s 2020 APFM closing plenary.[^3]

In that plenary, Saposnek, author, child psychologist, mediator, and professor at Pepperdine (not to mention friend and mentor), laid out a golden thread tracing back to the 1980s—when Strategic Mediation was first introduced—stretching all the way to today, as this concept finally gains more mainstream recognition. His presentation also highlighted recent research on how the most effective mediators operate, showing that success isn’t tied to a single mediation model, but rather to a mediator’s ability to shift modes within a single case.[^4]

This completely aligned with what I had already been seeing in my own practice: the best mediators are not rigidly facilitative or strictly evaluative. They are multimodal. They recognize that different situations—and different parties—call for different interventions.[^5]

I was so struck by the plenary that I made it mandatory viewing for my students at UMN Law’s mediation clinic. I wanted them to see, as I had, that mediation is more adaptive than the strict facilitative model suggests.[^6]

From One Model to Multimodal

Don helped to give me the language (“Strategic Mediation”) to describe what I had already started practicing: I wasn’t just following one model—I was switching modes as needed.

For example, I noticed myself doing three things:

1. I tried to get party buy-in on the best ideas for co-parenting. I tried to avoid being too didactic and preferred to engage parents in ways that help them buy into solutions that have worked for other people or been beneficial for other children.[^7]

2. I provided them with well-cited research. I didn’t tell them what I personally thought was best based on my theories and parental experience—I gave them resources that summarize the latest evidence and research and let parents vet the information themselves.[^8]

3. I deferred to trusted third parties. If parents were even the slightest bit resistant to an idea I introduced, I tried to resist the urge to “sell” them on it. Instead, I preferred to encourage parents to check with someone they both trusted—like their pediatrician, their child’s school counselor, therapist, social worker, or another professional they both trust.[^9]

These non-purist practices were allowing me to stay impartial between parents while still ensuring that children’s needs are accounted for.

Keeping Neutrality Useful

Mediator neutrality is obviously vital in a certain sense; no party would agree to work with someone who was prejudicial against them in some way. So—to be clear, I’m not advocating for zero-tolerance toward mediator neutrality. My stance is yes to neutrality—but not neutrality to a fault.

Neutrality isn’t useful, for example, if it manifests as a mediator standing by while parents make uninformed choices in a moment of emotional reactivity. It is usefully neutral for a mediator to ensure that both parents have access to the knowledge, the guidance, and the expert insight needed to make sound decisions.[^10]

Strategic Mediation, much like Saposnek (and recently, Barney Jordaan; see his recent LinkedIn article) has argued, offers a framework that allows for modes, not models—where the mediator shifts their approach as the needs of the case evolve.[^11] In this context, “strategic” means strategically choosing the right approach for the right moment. Particularly in divorce and co-parenting mediation, where the well-being of children is at stake, neutrality cannot mean passivity. It must mean ensuring that parents, even in their hardest moments, have the opportunity to make decisions rooted in knowledge, clarity, and foresight.

Conclusion

Perhaps you are reading this because you find yourself at that strange and surreal crossroads known as divorce. Or perhaps you are trying, with the best of intentions, to co-parent with someone who seems committed to proving that the best way to raise a child is to win a war. Whatever the case, if the above resonated with you, I invite you to reach out.

I don’t deal in vague affirmations or toothless neutrality—I deal in clarity, strategy, and ensuring that every decision you make in mediation is an informed one. Because the last thing a dispute needs is a mediator who just sits there, nodding sagely while two people steer their own catastrophe. If you’re interested in working together, I offer a free 1-hour consultation, which you can schedule here.

For direct inquiries, you can reach me at:

📞 Text/Call: (612) 234-5357

📧 Email: clientcare@glassmannfamilycoaching.com

🌐 Website: www.glassmannfamilycoaching.com

Your divorce (and post-divorce life) is, of course, yours. Your children’s well-being? That’s not negotiable. And my job is to shift modes as needed, ensuring parents have everything they need to get that right. If you need someone to help you navigate the turbulence—without illusions, but with precision and purpose—I’m here.

Bibliography

• Blume, T., & Price, J. (2016). Strategic Mediation: Strategies in Service of Family Empowerment. Retrieved from Consensus.

• Jordaan, B. (2023). The Myth of Mediator Neutrality and Its Implications for Mediation Training. Retrieved from LinkedIn.

• McIntosh, J., & Tan, E. S. (2017). Young Children in Divorce and Separation: Pilot Study of a Mediation-Based Co-Parenting Intervention. Family Court Review, 55, 329-344. Retrieved from Consensus.

• Saposnek, D. (2020). APFM Closing Plenary: Strategic Mediation and the Evolution of Practice. Retrieved from Vimeo.

Notes

[^1]: Blume & Price (2016).

[^2]: McIntosh & Tan (2017).

[^3]: Saposnek (2020).

[^4]: Ibid.

[^5]: Ibid.

[^6]: Ibid.

[^7]: Jordaan (2023).

[^8]: Blume & Price (2016).

[^9]: McIntosh & Tan (2017).

[^10]: Saposnek (2020).

[^11]: Jordaan (2023).