Current projects

FDR for clients intending to go to court: More than just a tick-box exercise?

2023–24

Separating parents are legally required to try FDR for parenting disputes before they can go to court. This can mean that FDR can sometimes be seen as a ‘tick-box’ exercise for parents who have no expectation of negotiating an agreement. With this knowledge we asked the question: Is FDR still valuable for these clients? 

In 2023–24, we conducted new analyses with data from our national Relationships Australia FDR Outcomes Study 2017–2019. We explored the outcomes of FDR for all 704 parents in the full sample, and compared these to the outcomes for a subgroup of 126 parents who told us during intake they wanted a certificate to proceed to court to resolve their parenting disputes.

We presented on our findings at the Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference in 2024 and at the National Mediation Conference in 2025.

What we found

Legally assisted FDR (LAFDR)

2023–24

Our legally assisted FDR service is delivered in partnership with community legal centres, to reduce barriers to participation in nonadversarial dispute resolution services. The service is designed to support vulnerable clients and those experiencing power imbalances. In 2023, we commenced a project to evaluate the outcomes of the partnership model, gain client feedback and identify the successful features of the model, through a client survey and interviews with clients and practitioners.

Our findings from this study suggest that this service model is an important element in RAV’s suite of alternative dispute resolution services, providing choice to vulnerable clients and enabling a greater number of separating parents to receive assistance needed. Some clients wanted more time, or the option of a second session, to adequately address both parties’ agendas. However, of the 54 clients who completed the survey, 80% reached an agreement through LAFDR, exceeding the 59% who expected to do so. Clients appreciated the child-focused and cost-effective nature of the service. Most of all, clients attested to the value of legal assistance, stating that the lawyers helped them understand their position (91%) and respond to proposals (89%), and that they felt more confident (85%) and safer (80%) with lawyer support.

'I found that very helpful to get like actual proper legal advice, in terms of what we were coming up with and how it could possibly play out … [that] gave me confidence.’ - Legally assisted FDR client.

We presented on our LAFDR study at the Family and Relationship Services Australia Conference in 2023 and in 2025, at the National Mediation Conference in 2023.

A research summary and a journal article on this study are forthcoming later this year.

Post-Separation Co-parenting Apps: Can They Help Families Avoid Conflict? Australian Research Council Linkage Grant

2021–23

The ubiquity of smartphones has been accompanied by a proliferation of apps to help separated parents manage their post-separation arrangements. Family law professionals are often asked about these apps by clients—yet there has been no empirical evidence that either professionals or clients can draw on about the potential benefits and risks of these apps.

We partnered with academics at the Australian National University and University of Wollongong on an Australian Research Council (ARC)-funded study which aims to address this gap. In 2020, the study was awarded funding through an ARC Linkage Grant, with a March 2021 to March 2023 project timeline. The project involved multiple stages including:

• a survey of family law professionals
• a survey of app users
• and an evaluation of popular post-separation parenting apps. 

We identified numerous benefits and risks associated with the use of co-parenting apps (applications). We also found that family law professionals generally report little knowledge of co-parenting apps. A number of our Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Practitioners participated in testing 10 popular apps, all of which were rated 'poor' to ‘fair’.

We presented on this study at the Family and Relationships Services Australia (FRSA) conference in 2022 and 2023, at the Australian Institute of Family Studies conference in 2022, at the National Mediation Conference in 2023, and at the Victorian Family Relationship Centres Good Practice Forum in 2023.

Articles from this study have been published in respected peer-reviewed journals:

• Irving M (2024) ‘Post-Separation Parenting Apps in the Context of Family Violence: Harm Minimisation Versus Harm Facilitation’. Law, Technology and Humans 6 (1):59-74. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3403.
• Irving M and Smyth B (2024) ‘Post-Separation Parenting Apps: Potential benefits and risks in the context of family violence’. Australian Journal of Family Law, 36, 90-104.
• Heard G, Irving MA, Smyth BM, Payne JL and Althor G (2023) ‘Risks and benefits of post-separation parenting apps: perceptions of family law professionals in Australia and New Zealand’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 45(2), doi: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2206225
• Irving MA, Heard G, Smyth BM, Payne JL and Althor G (2023) 'Post-separation parenting apps in the hands of family law practitioners: expectations versus experience'. International Journal of Law, Policy, and the Family, 37(1), ebad027.
• Smyth BM, Payne JL, Irving M and Heard G (2023) ‘Popular post-separation parenting apps: An evaluation.’, Family Court Review 61(3), 563-585.
• Payne JL, Smyth BM, Irving M, Heard G and Althor G (2022) ‘Family law professionals’ views of post-separation parenting apps’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 36(1), doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebac029.

You can read more about the beginnings of the project on page 14 of our 2019/20 Annual Report.

AccessResolve Property Dispute Resolution Study

2019–20: Client perspectives

AccessResolve is RAV’s property conciliation service for court-ordered clients. Although it supports a relatively high-conflict cohort of clients, it records strong settlement rates of 60-70%. Our 2019–20 study investigated how and why this was achieved, with the following findings.

• Clients report strong satisfaction with the service, particularly with practitioner characteristics.
• While practitioners have a greater capacity to be more advisory under the conciliation model, clients have a strong sense of confidence in the impartiality of practitioners.
• A large majority of participating clients felt able to express themselves during their session. Some interviewees described a strong sense of self-determination in the process.

These findings point to important elements of the conciliation model underpinning high settlement rates. This is important because it helps inform the ongoing development and refinement of this and other models of alternative dispute resolution.

We presented on this study at the National Mediation Conference in September 2021, and in 2023 we published a research summary that outlines the results.

2024–25: Practitioner perspectives

In 2024–25, we extended our research through a survey of AccessResolve conciliators, who completed an online survey for each of the 212 cases through the service between September 2024 and March 2025. Given that settlement rates vary from year to year, our aim was to measure variables which may affect outcomes of the AccessResolve service.

Conciliators most often nominated their ‘ability to encourage compromise’ as the factor which assisted clients reach settlement (90%), followed by ‘lawyers encouraging negotiation and/or compromise’ (86%) and ‘clients openness to negotiation and/or compromise’ (80%). Conversely, conciliators cited ‘level of acrimony (hostility) between parties’ as the most common barrier in cases where no settlement was reached.  

Both the quality and timing of the documentation also affected settlement rates, with last-minute documentation (on the day of conciliation) proving a particular hindrance. Parties or their legal representatives are required to supply a Confidential Case Outline and Balance Sheet 14 days before their conciliation.

Our study showed that nearly half of conciliation sessions take longer than the 3 hours allocated. Conciliators believe that the ability to offer a second session would help more clients to reach agreement on a greater number of issues.

We presented on these findings at the National Mediation Conference in 2025.

A research summary and journal article on this study are forthcoming later this year.

Relationships Australia Family Dispute Resolution Outcomes Study

2017-19

The Relationships Australia (RA) FDR Outcomes Study was a national project that was jointly led by Relationships Australia Victoria (RAV) and Relationships Australia Queensland (RAQ). RAV led the property component of this national study, which involved collecting survey data at multiple points in time from 1,695 clients across Australia. Combined with interview data from 200 of these clients, the study generated evidence on the outcomes of RA FDR services in both parenting and property disputes.

Key findings of the research include that:

• Almost two-thirds (65%) of participants reached a full or partial agreement on one matter or more.
• Overwhelmingly, participants found FDR to be safe, accessible and affordable. The traits of mediators were rated most positively.
• Reaching an agreement significantly reduced acrimony between the two parties. Simply participating in FDR alone, however, also reduced acrimony among those clients who expected to proceed onto court, and the FDR process also improved communication and adjustment to separation for many participants.

In 2023, we published a research summary that explores some of the key findings of the study. Several peer-reviewed papers have also been published on this study:

Heard G and Bickerdike A (2021) ‘“Am I on track?” Family Dispute Resolution & the client need for guidance in post-separation property matters’, Australian Journal of Family Law, 34(3): 211-230

Heard G and Bickerdike A (2021) ‘Dispute resolution choices for property settlement in Australia: Client views on the advantages and disadvantages of Family Dispute Resolution and legal pathways’, Family Court Review, 59(4): 790-809.

Heard G, Bickerdike A and Lee J (2021) ‘Family Dispute Resolution for property matters: The case for making space’, Australasian Journal of Dispute Resolution, 31(2): 158-172.

Family Violence

Family Violence Position Paper

2025

In recent times, Victorians have witnessed an alarming number of high-profile incidents of family violence. How can we understand these incidents and respond appropriately, as a service sector and in the community more broadly?

Relationships Australia Victoria (RAV) has prepared a Family Violence Position Paper to support RAV’s workforce and leadership, as well as those outside our organisation and those working in non-family violence specific programs, in their understanding of family violence, its causes and consequences, and approaches to prevention.

Evaluating Men's Behaviour Change Programs

2025–ongoing

We are collaborating on a national project with other Relationships Australia agencies on a project to evaluate our Men’s Behaviour Change Programs. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has been engaged to audit our programs and produce a common theory of change, against which an evaluation framework will be designed. This exciting project will run for at least 3 years.

Perpetrator Program Attrition and Participant Engagement Strategies

2023–ongoing

We are proud to be collaborating on a Victorian Government Family Violence Research Grant. The project, led by Monash University, is designed to enhance the evidence base in Victoria on perpetrator attrition and engagement strategies, to inform service delivery, innovation and best practice. RAV is one of the largest and continuous providers of Men’s Behaviour Change Programs (MBCPs) in Victoria. MBCPs are an important family violence intervention strategy, as such RAV is committed to increasing the evidence base for effective interventions and for this to inform innovations in practice development and implementation.

As a project partner, we will participate in the co-design of data collection, provide program attrition data, invite program participants, affected family members and practitioners to participate in research, and contribute to the development of evidence-based engagement guidelines. For more information, visit the Monash University website.