Mediation And Family Law

Mediation has been used by the texas Superior Court as a way of resolving child custody disputes since its beginning in 1955. If the parties are involved in a custody dispute, mediation is necessary. In fact, a court won't make orders related to custody unless the parties have tried to resolve their custody dispute through mediation. Court employees trained in resolving such disputes work with the parents in an hard work to reach a custody agreement. this type of mediation is known as Conciliation Court. Attorneys are not permitted to participate in this method & the "mediators" advise the parties that they have the chance to reject any agreement entered into within 10 days or the morning before the Court hearing, whichever occurs first. What the "mediators" & plenty of attorneys fail to describe to the parties is that in the event that they timely reject the Conciliation Court Agreement, the judge will often inquire as to the reasons for the rejection of that agreement. Unless the rejection is based upon a significant incident that occurred since entering into the agreement, plenty of judges will make a custody order that fundamentally reinstates the terms of the original agreement, irrespective of the rejection.

By utilizing some kind of collaborative law in relatives law matters, the parties maintain control over the finish result. After all, a settlement can only be reached by agreement among the parties. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on each & every issue at some point, they will then be forced to litigate the unresolved issues in court.

i have been volunteering as an attorney mediator on a rotating basis at the van Nuys Courthouse since January of 2008. i have found that program to be a effective means with which to resolve such legal disputes. To date, i have settled a significant percentage of the matters that i have mediated as a volunteer for the van Nuys relatives Law Court. Those matters have involved custody/visitation disputes, spousal and/or child support issues, & requests for contribution toward attorney's fees. i have found mediating relatives matters so personally rewarding that in or about May of 2008, I done a 40-hour training in mediation skills.

plenty of of the texas County courthouses utilize attorney mediators for the relatives law matters. relatives law attorneys are asked to volunteer their time at a specific courthouse & are sent cases which the judge or commissioner believes are appropriate for mediation. As an example, I must point out that there's two relatives law courtrooms in the van Nuys Courthouse, & that there's usually at least 20 matters set for hearing in each of those courtrooms on any given morning. However, it's rare for over a two to seven cases to be sent down to mediation at any given day. The reason that so few cases are sent to the mediator is that the judges & commissioners do not reckon that every case is appropriate for mediation.

Often times, the parties participate in mediation without legal counsel, but the mediator recommends that each party go over agreements reached with separate counsel before signing the agreements. While in theory this is a way of defending the weaker party, the issue is that both parties are aware of the agreement that each was willing to make. If material changes are requested after consulting with attorneys, it's often difficult or impossible to make those changes because of the terms that were preliminarily agreed to by the parties, as mentioned above.

I tend to agree with those judges & commissioners that hold that mediation is not appropriate for every case. The parties and/or their attorneys must have a lovely faith desire to resolve their disputes in such a manner. I use the term lovely faith because i have found that in a relatives law situation, one party usually tends to be more aggressive than the other. i have also noticed that the more aggressive party tends to be the one pushing the idea of mediation & that the parties participate in mediation without legal counsel. it's important to note that a mediator cannot represent the interests of any particular party. In fact, the mediator's job is to assist in resolving the legal dispute. If the parties are not represented by separate counsel & one party is more aggressive in the mediation, he/she may be able to put into effect a mediation settlement that is unfair to the other party through intimidation or by "steam rolling over" the weaker party. regrettably, once the agreement is signed, it's practically impossible to set aside. While such a case may be resolved through mediation, if the agreement is unfair to the weaker party, i am not certain that I would reckon about the mediation to have been a success.

If used effectively, a mediated resolution allows the parties to heal much sooner from their emotional wounds caused by the dissolution of their relationship. Mediation also permits the parties to delve into the underlying reasons they desire certain results & thereby allows for more creative resolutions that might accomplish those needs through means that are more palatable to the other party. However, it's a misconception that mediation is always a less costly kind of dispute resolution. It definitely has its benefits, if used effectively. However, if the primary reason for utilizing mediation is cost savings, the parties may not be using it effectively.

As a result, I reckon that the "safest" kind of mediation is where each party is represented by counsel throughout the method. Obviously, this is often not the case. I do not mean to convey that mediation cannot be effective unless each party is represented by counsel. However, the parties ought to exercise caution when mediating without separate counsel because of the risks involved.

Although I mentioned that i have successfully mediated matters in short time frames, it must be noted that those resolutions were merely on issues set for hearing on a specific date & not on each & every issue involved in the case. Furthermore, the parties had spent money & time briefing those issues for the hearing & I was able to review & analyze the tile & the both sides' positions before commencing the mediation.