A growing area of interest and concern is how mediation can help with disputes involving animals. This includes companion animals, show animals, horses and livestock, fish (such as aquaculture), insects (such as beehives), and basically all non-human creatures.

In the United States, animals are generally considered property in the courts, much to the distress of their human companions. A 2016 Harris Poll revealed that 95% of humans consider their animal companion to be a member of their family. That gap in status is a continuing source of conflict and emotional stress.

The list of disputes than can include animals is long, but the following are the most common:

• Veterinary malpractice

• Disputes with groomers and others who provide services

• Pet sales

• Landlord-tenant

• Dog bite

• Partnership agreements involving livestock or horses

• Neighborhood disputes involving animals

•  Divorce and family low matters involving animals such as custody and ownership

• Probate matters involving pets such as in estate planning

Even though the legal status of animals is property, humans attach great emotional value to these companions. And it is that emotion which makes these disputes best handled with mediation. While a provider’s liability may be limited to the animal’s sale value as property, in almost all cases the emotional value means more and is deeply felt.

I myself have mediated with couples dividing up their property in separation agreements. In every case assets and debts are easily handled. It is the animals that can bring up emotion and guilt. Often the agreement includes visitation rights—sometimes not for the humans, but for the animals.

At times, disputes involving animals can have a significant dollar value attached. One case involved the possession and use of breeding sperm from a champion race horse.

Increasingly there is a growing recognition that while animals do not have legal rights, they are granted legal considerations, that is, as sentient beings, not objects and are protected by a growing list of safeguards.

One of the first mediations I was ever part of concerned two neighbors in court regarding a rooster crowing during early morning hours. The parties could not reach an agreement and their dispute actually ended up in court. I remember the judge checked zoning regulations and determined that having a rooster was permitted and ruled “just as birds got to fly, roosters got to crow, so get used to it.”

Trust seems to be a simple word, but even a quick internet search reveals that it’s not an easy word to define. Some definitions stress consistency; others mention safety from hurt. Whatever the definition it has long been said that participants in a mediation must be able to trust the mediator. The question is, then, what does trusting your mediator actually mean?

Many years ago, communication researchers Charles W. Rossiter and W. Barnett Pearce identified two components of trust in relationships—the perception of competence and of good will. Decades of research in mediation have underscored those two components.

That question has been addressed in detail by Jean Poitras, a professor at HEC Montreal. For his study of professional Canadian workplace mediators, Poitras asked participants how they came to trust or distrust their mediator. From the data analysis he identified several core factors:

• Mastery: A demonstration of experience, knowledge of their case, and self-assurance.

• Explanation of the process: Effectively explaining the process of mediation contributed to the perception of trust. While it is not specifically mentioned how mediators explained the process, I would assume it was during their opening statement.

• Warm and considerate: This meant making participants feel as comfortable as possible and displaying respect for the people involved. While the participants in the study didn’t use the word “empathy” that concept might reflect their thoughts.

• Chemistry: The researcher used the term “chemistry,” but from the phrases the participants in the study used, chemistry could easily refer to non-verbal factors. The participants referred to feeling, intuition or instinct from the meditator’s eye contact or gaze, tone of voice and other less tangible factors.

• Partiality: This component was a negative factor. Respondents who perceived the mediator appearing to pay closer attention or favor that party procedurally lost their trust.

It is easy enough to encourage beginning mediators to have a well-developed opening statement and to be careful to treat participants with neutrality and impartiality. That ways of demonstrating empathy, listening, questioning and summarizing are important. Giving suggestions for the other components of trust are less direct. One way, though, is to help beginning mediators develop a mindset that becomes reflected in their behavior. That mindset includes wanting to be completely present in the mediation, being positive that the process can work and being sincerely interested in the parties’ stories.