Although many separating Australian couples make their own arrangements for property division, evidence suggests over 40% nominate either Family Dispute Resolution (FDR), lawyers or courts as their main pathway to settlement. Whereas it is compulsory to attempt FDR in parenting matters, this is not so for property matters. This paper examines client perspectives on property dispute resolution methods using interviews with 112 prospective FDR clients. Some proceeded to joint FDR and some did not, or proceeded for parenting matters only. Thematic analysis highlights the perceived benefits and disadvantages of FDR, compared to using lawyers or going to court, for property matters. We explore issues relating to the cost and character of each process, including implications for post-separation relationships. Often the initial motivation for choosing FDR was that of avoiding the legal alternatives, which were considered costlier, stressful and/or more acrimonious. After the fact, FDR participants could also identify advantages of the mediation process itself. We conclude that affordability and conflict mitigation are important to clients when choosing and evaluating pathways to property settlement. Those opting to use lawyers instead often wanted more guidance with regard to outcomes, or considered legal pathways more authoritative.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚财产和解的争议解决选择：客户对家庭争议解决和法律途径的优缺点的看法

尽管许多分居的澳大利亚夫妇会自行安排财产分割，但有证据表明，超过 40% 的人指定家庭纠纷解决 (FDR)、律师或法院作为解决的主要途径。虽然在养育问题上尝试 FDR 是强制性的，但对于财产问题则不然。本文通过对 112 位潜在 FDR 客户的采访，研究了客户对财产纠纷解决方法的看法。有些人开始联合 FDR，有些人没有，或仅就育儿事宜进行。专题分析突出了 FDR 与使用律师或上法庭相比，在财产问题上的优势和劣势。我们探讨与每个过程的成本和特征相关的问题，包括对分居后关系的影响。通常，选择 FDR 的最初动机是避免使用法律替代方案，因为这些替代方案被认为成本更高、压力更大和/或更激烈。事后，FDR 参与者还可以确定调解过程本身的优势。我们得出的结论是，在选择和评估财产解决途径时，可负担性和缓解冲突对客户很重要。那些选择使用律师的人通常希望获得更多关于结果的指导，或者认为法律途径更具权威性。我们得出的结论是，在选择和评估财产解决途径时，可负担性和缓解冲突对客户很重要。那些选择使用律师的人通常希望获得更多关于结果的指导，或者认为法律途径更具权威性。我们得出的结论是，在选择和评估财产解决途径时，可负担性和缓解冲突对客户很重要。那些选择使用律师的人通常希望获得更多关于结果的指导，或者认为法律途径更具权威性。