Yes Idaho is experiencing the same shortage of psychologists and mental health professionals willing to conduct parenting (or custody) evaluations.  The shortage is happening for two reasons, 1) because the mental health professionals are no longer willing to be part of the adversarial process realizing how harmful it is to the family, and 2) because the evaluators are getting caught up in legal action against them for making custody recommendations.  One of the best evaluators in our largest urban area was recently sued by an unhappy parent and he said “That’s it – I’m no longer doing these.”  So now Ada County only has 2 people who are wiling to continue doing these evaluations and parents are waiting over 7 months for completion.  

Some of the Idaho courts are turning to “Child & Family Needs Assessment” where information is gathered from parents, collaterals, records reviewed and the information reported back to the court, which does not include custody recommendations but recommendations about what would help the parents move forward and what the children need and how to keep the children safe.  It seems to be working well in the First Judical District and several other districts have expressed a desire to implement the project.  We are also developing some 4 to 6 week therapeutic models to work with high conflict parents and give them information that will help them move toward settlement. 

The shortage of custody evaluators across the state is causing courts to be more creative in how they get cases solved and how the court gets information to improve decision making.  We are also continuing to move in the direction of coordinating information from other court cases like the Child Protection case and Domestic Violence case with the family divorce/custody case so all the court information gets to the decision maker and some areas in the state are doing a “unified family Court” model by moving several or all the cases under one judge so the decision maker has access to more information that way.

My read:  While it is quite possible that certain mediators may emphasize a particular approach, I see that virtually all mediators use a variety of approaches.  Whatever will best and will get the job done.

Surely, if participants want an "evaluative" approach, this may impact the mediator they select.  A subject matter expert may be needed.  If a "facilitative" approach is desired, then subject matter expertise may be less critical.  I suppose that to get "Transformative," you might want someone who has had such training . . .  but there is great debate as to whether these kind of things really make a difference.  Participants have certain needs and, whatever they are, the mediator is wise to recognize and deliver on, either directly or with the assistance of others.

Bottom line, I believe most mediators are eclectic and flexible. 

Critically, it is worth recognizing that mediators may well do different things at different times. 

So, we may start out "facilitative" to be educated and help the folks do as much as possible through problem solving.  That may get us a good way down the field.  But we may need more mediator centric approaches ("guessing," "heat," evaluation, others) to help get the ball past the goal line. 

As participants at all times retain complete decision-making power, there is lessened concern about imposition, but it can be argued that mediator centric approaches are more dependent on the subject matter perceptions of the mediator. 

Jim Melamed