In France, the history of family mediation is marked by great hopes, equally strong disappointments, and, finally, an irrepressible stagnation. Here, we reconsider this story. Where does the impression come from, over the last 30 years, of an almost inescapable disillusionment? Is it the effect of the competition between different professional groups in the field, which operates to the detriment of family mediation? Is it due to the fact that the supporters of mediation did not have sufficient strength? Or is it a trait inherent to mediation itself, as if the immense hope that it had aroused in its promoters could only be disappointed?

For this analysis of the diffusion of an innovation in the sociolegal world, it is necessary to consider the strategies of legal professions, as well as the action of the State. In order to understand the strange position of mediation, we will try to answer the following questions: what kind of response does mediation offer to the new situations and demands that have appeared in the family field? Which actors have shown themselves capable of developing such a form of action by relying on a recognised expertise? What role has the State played, either in recognising this expertise and supporting family mediation, or in moderating the activism of mediators? Finally, what relations, and also what tensions, have developed within the different professional groups that intervene in the judicial field?

These four questions will be asked in relation to three very different stages of the development of family mediation in France: the moment of its ‘invention’, the moment of its institutionalisation, and, finally, the position it has today.

1. THE TIME OF ENTHUSIASM AND RECOGNITION

The first period of the implementation of family mediation in France dates from 1988 to 1989. Presented in several conferences, at the initiative of parents and legal professionals, mediation immediately aroused an extraordinary enthusiasm. We can try to distinguish what is specific in this first stage, from the point of view of the four parameters mentioned above, namely the existence of a ‘market’, the action of the promoters of family mediation, the role of the public authorities, and the reactions of the other professionals in the judicial field.