Critics of ODR in family court raise valid risks that deserve thoughtful consideration. Some of the common expressed concerns include:

Concern: “Family disputes are too emotionally complex for technological solutions.”

Some of the earliest ODR solutions from a decade ago offered overly simplistic form-based solutions for family conflicts, which underscored this concern. But newer ODR systems are far more attuned to the psychological complexity of family cases and designed around the needs of the parties throughout the process. Well-designed ODR systems also incorporate trained human mediators who can guide participants through difficult conversations, bringing human expertise and empathy to digital environments. The wider cultural context (particularly for Gen Z and Millennials) has also changed significantly over the last ten years, and younger parties are often more comfortable having emotional conversations asynchronously via technology than face-to-face. ODR can create a structured space where emotions can be expressed more thoughtfully, often leading to more productive exchanges than heated in-person confrontations that exacerbate ill will.

Concern: “Not everyone has equal access to technology.”

The digital divide is a real challenge, but one that courts and parties are increasingly equipped to address. Fifteen years ago only rich people had access to laptops and fast internet connections, but now 98% of Americans access the web multiple times a day, usually through powerful mobile devices that are fully integrated into their daily lives. These new tools can enable 24×7 access to resolution processes, with assistance at the ready to resolve disagreements before they escalate, answering any questions users may have. When properly implemented, modern ODR systems can significantly increase access to justice for working parents, those with transportation limitations, and self-represented litigants who find traditional in-person court processes intimidating or confusing.

Concern: “The personal touch of judges and mediators gets lost online.”

In reality, well-designed ODR processes preserve and sometimes enhance personal connection. The stereotype in the 1990s was that technology based communication was sterile and unemotional, but modern technology has become fully humanized. Now most people are often more comfortable discussing intimate and emotional subjects through technological channels. Video conferencing is now powerful enough to support subtle and satisfying communication between parties, without the logistical and cost burdens of convening in person. Additionally, asynchronous communication gives parties time to reflect before responding, leading to more thoughtful and reflective engagement than what might happen under the pressure of a courtroom environment.

Many court professionals initially embrace ODR because of the obvious increases in efficiency: faster, cheaper resolutions that can be achieved around the clock without heavy burdens on court staff. But the benefits from ODR in family disputes extend beyond efficiency. New ODR systems can create environments that assist families in moving from conflict into collaboration, reducing the traumatic impact of the litigation process on children. Instead of wasting energy on administrative tasks and document management, the judge’s role can evolve from process manager to facilitator; technology manages the administrative details while the judge focuses on the essentially human components of the process: fairness, respect, and justice.

The essential question isn’t whether technology belongs in family court—it is becoming increasingly clear that growing adoption is inevitable over time. What court professionals should focus on is how ODR technology can best be leveraged to reinforce the central objective of all judicial professionals: better serving families during their most vulnerable moments.