That is why the legal community sometimes gets them mixed up. Mediation by definition requires that parties come to the table withina framework that balances power between the parties. In FGDM in a child protection or court related context power is not balanced.
Child protection has the final say around settlement as does the court is certain circumstannces.
One cannot mediate situations when one party holds the trump. The agency in child protection FGDM should always hold trump on the risk threshold. Don't know if this helps and quite frankly beyond the semantics I don't know if it is all that important to your judicial group. The important thing is implementing the model because it is a way of thinking about enhancing family strengths as opposed to a program that gets delivered. Empowering the family is the balancing of power common to mediation but in child protection scenarios it is not a complete balancing.