WILLEMSTAD – Parents participating in family mediation do not automatically have the right to inspect the complete case file afterward, according to a ruling by the Ombudsman of Curaçao that emphasizes the importance of confidentiality in resolving parental conflicts.
The finding came in a case involving a mother who requested access to all information held by an unnamed youth-care foundation after a mediation process involving her minor son and the child's father.
The mother has sole parental authority and argued that access to the file was necessary to protect her son's interests. She also wanted to use the information in a new process she had started with another organization to reach structured agreements on visitation and financial support.
The foundation refused, maintaining that mediation files are confidential and remain its property. Its internal policy prohibits access by the parents themselves and by outside organizations unless a court orders disclosure.
The Ombudsman's report explains that the foundation's mediation procedure begins with individual interviews with each parent. A social worker then uses the information gathered to prepare a draft agreement covering matters such as visitation, care and financial responsibilities.
Parents are informed in advance that participation is voluntary and that they may withdraw at any stage. They are also told that they will not receive full access to the case file or internal notes because those records may contain information concerning the other parent.
Instead, the foundation may issue a statement confirming that mediation took place or that the process was completed.
The confidentiality principle is intended to encourage both parties to speak freely while searching for a solution. Information is provided on the understanding that it will remain within the mediation process and will not later be used against one of the participants.
The Ombudsman said the file resulted from a joint and confidential process involving two parties in conflict. By signing the mediation agreement, participants voluntarily accept restrictions on their ability to obtain or use the information outside the procedure.
The report referred to Dutch court rulings indicating that mediation confidentiality is not easily set aside. A participant must generally demonstrate the existence of an urgent emergency before disclosure can be justified.
Examples could include a mediation process being used to conceal criminal conduct or a situation in which maintaining confidentiality would expose a vulnerable person to harm, such as suspected child abuse.
The Ombudsman found no evidence of such an exception in the case under review.
Although the mother could not independently verify the foundation's claim that the file contained only information she had personally supplied, the available material did not establish grounds for overriding confidentiality.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the foundation could reasonably consider its duty of confidentiality when deciding not to grant access. Its refusal was not classified as improper and did not violate the interests of the child.
The ruling does not mean that mediation confidentiality is absolute in every circumstance. The report acknowledges that urgent situations and threats to vulnerable people may justify an exception. However, the threshold is high and must be supported by concrete evidence.
The mother had argued that the lack of access prevented her from adequately protecting her son. The Ombudsman found that this concern did not create an insurmountable obstacle because she had been referred to the government organization Protehami.
She had also begun mediation with another organization, which could build a new file based on the child's current situation. As a result, maintaining the confidentiality of the earlier process would not prevent her from pursuing the child's interests through the new assistance program.
The case also exposed the practical tension between parental authority and mediation secrecy.
A parent with sole authority may reasonably expect access to information concerning a child. At the same time, mediation depends on both parents being able to communicate confidentially. Allowing either party unrestricted access to internal notes could undermine trust and discourage open participation.
The Ombudsman's ruling gives priority to the confidentiality agreement unless there is a sufficiently serious reason to break it.
The report further found that the foundation had adequately communicated the closure of the case. In May 2025, it informed the mother that the matter had been closed and directed her to Protehami for further assistance. It repeated this position in June and offered a written letter of confirmation.
Because the mother had already withdrawn from the mediation due to dissatisfaction with the foundation, the Ombudsman concluded that the later correspondence merely confirmed a process that had already ended.
The final decision declared the mother's complaint unfounded. At the same time, the case provides important guidance for parents and organizations involved in family mediation: confidentiality is a central condition of the process, but it may be reconsidered where a genuine emergency or serious threat to a child's welfare can be demonstrated.