Curious about mediation use
Vicki Robinson
availability and use of mediation in divorce and step-family disputes.
How many of you know about mediation? How many have used it? What
were your experiences? If you knew about it and chose to go another
route, why?
In the interests of full disclosure, I'll tell you that I'm in
training now to become a divorce and family mediator, but that I am
not in practice now, nor do I anticipate being in practice anytime
soon. I'm not trying to drum up business, since I have no business to
drum up, and I wouldn't use a Usenet group that way anyway. I'm
simply interested in your perceptions and opinions and experiences.
Vicki
--
Visit our wedding at http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/wedding.html and
sign our guest book! The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can
be found at http://www.urbanlegends.com. Take a look, if you
have a week to spare.
carol koponen
Vicki Robinson
>We have tried and tried with mediation. I am assuming you're talking
>about court mediation that is. We have requested it and been told that
>as long as the other parent agreed once a year they don't need to again.
>HAH
>Our experience in mediation has been a stron bias against dads. The
>mediator said it was fine for a 6 yr old to hang out in a bar as long as
>mommy was there. They said it was fine if her many boyfriends spend the
>night when child was present...basically they supported mom (ncp) and
>told dad to shove it (excuse the phrase). It was very disheartening and
>in the long run useless.
>I wish you luck and hope you can change the system for the better.
Eeek. What you experienced was not mediation. (Who was your
mediator? Was he trained as a mediator, or was he an attorney who
thinks he knows what mediation is all about?)
A mediator should not have *any* biases. (Being human, of course they
do, but they should be putting them on the shelf during a mediation
session.) A mediator should be supporting *both* people in *their*
efforts to solve their mutual problem. A mediator can help people
generate solutions and perhaps help them see where they are limiting
their options. A mediator controls the *process*, making sure that
everyone gets heard and that no one gets steamrolled, and that the
agreement that is reached is acceptable to both parties.
Court-ordered mediation is problematic; mediation works when both
people are willing to make it work. The first descriptor of mediation
is that it's *voluntary*. Either party can end the process any time
s/he wishes to. So can the mediator.
I'm sorry you had such a bad experience.
janelaw
>
> This isn't a survey, I have just been wondering lately about the
> availability and use of mediation in divorce and step-family disputes.
>
When I first read this I thought it said "medication." LOL I
was sitting here thinking, "Well, prozac could be helpful if you
were depressed, but....."
I was probably thinking about all the BPD stuff that SSM's post
brought up. BPD is a good example of what I find problematic
with mediation. Where there is a history of domestic violence,
intimidation, abuse, or mental illness in the marriage, that
carries over into the mediation. The party who is accustomed to
submitting to unfair demands will continue to do so. The
abusive or irrational party will continue to be so. In
situations like that, you need lawyers to advocate, defend and
buffer. Mediators can't do those things and remain objective.
In my limited experience, mediation requires that the parties
act rationally and want to resolve the conflict. Unfortunately,
everyone is crazy during a divorce. Many people do not want to
settle their affairs without acrimony, they want to yell,
scream, and pummel the STBX into admitting that the divorce is
all his or her fault. It's the last best chance to get in your
parting shots. Now if the parties have already gotten over that
stage, mediation can be wonderful.
Also, I frequently find some sort of mediation helpful in
dealing with my ex over visitation. Basically, we get along
fine, but we can still push each other's buttons. Once we get
going, we polarize. The solution to our disagreement is sitting
right there, not very far off from either of our positions. But
we need a neutral party to suggest it. Otherwise, it becomes
the other person's idea and inherently unreasonable. Is this
making sense?
carol koponen
Vicki Robinson
>The mediator criticized him for "not being cooperative", and that was
>the end of mediation. I'm not sure what the goal was, or who was
>driving it. But it surely wasn't entered into by two people committed
>to find a fair compromise, which is I think what VIcki advocates.
>
My heart is broken!
What all of you, with the exception of janelaw, are describing is so
far from mediation that I have no name for it! ARGH!
It's not necessary that both participants come to mediation with noble
and pure hearts, having put all of their anger and pain behind them.
That's just a little impossible. It is only necessary that both
people come to mediation realizing that they have to set the
parameters of their separation, they need to provide for the least
painful options for their children, and that they can preserve marital
assets (which is good for both of them) by going to mediation. (Costs
for mediation are *60% less*, on the average, than costs of two
attorneys.)
People going to mediation don't necessarily have the intention of
finding "fair," but they recognize the stupidity of dragging their
kids through court proceedings for 10 years at a cost of $100,000.
>I am still living in a fantasy that somehow we will find the right
>mental health professional who can mediate a peace between my husband
>and his ex, or even better, between all three of us. I understand this
>is unlikely. The kids' shrink won't try, but has recommended someone
>else, whom I'm meeting next week.... (I have to do the legwork, because
>my husband believes it will be a cold day in Hell before anything
>changes the way his ex behaves toward us)
>
You have a different situation, SSM. (I dread my first mediation that
deals with a borderline personality!) A mediator isn't necessarily a
mental health professional; some of them are, but some are lawyers,
some are teachers, some are accountants... name it. A mediator's role
is not that of a therapist. Mediators are problem-solvers. I think
you need a therapist, or at least a mediator with a mental health
background. Your wife-in-law has serious psychiatric problems and
they have to addressed.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear more!
Vicki Robinson
>Vicki Robinson wrote:
>>
>> My heart is broken!
>
>NoNoNo - I said it wrong - I was trying to say *you* are advocating the
>good kind (people come together to work it out), and contrasting that
>with what the court called mediation for my husband. I wasn't
>criticizing your kind of mediation; in fact, I wish it were possible in
>our case.... SSM
Oh, no, I understood what you meant, and you were perfectly clear. My
heart is broken because the term "mediation" is being horribly misused
all over the place, it's quite clear.
My my my. I really have to finish work on my mediation web page (all
it is is links right now) and put it in my .sig.
SoccerStepMom
> >the end of mediation. I'm not sure what the goal was, or who was
> >driving it. But it surely wasn't entered into by two people committed
> >to find a fair compromise, which is I think what VIcki advocates.
> >
NoNoNo - I said it wrong - I was trying to say *you* are advocating the
good kind (people come together to work it out), and contrasting that
with what the court called mediation for my husband. I wasn't
criticizing your kind of mediation; in fact, I wish it were possible in
our case.... SSM
SSM
Sian Lee Reid
Robinson) wrote:
>
> What all of you, with the exception of janelaw, are describing is so
> far from mediation that I have no name for it! ARGH!
>
> It's not necessary that both participants come to mediation with noble
> and pure hearts, having put all of their anger and pain behind them.
> That's just a little impossible. It is only necessary that both
> people come to mediation realizing that they have to set the
> parameters of their separation, they need to provide for the least
> painful options for their children, and that they can preserve marital
> assets (which is good for both of them) by going to mediation. (Costs
> for mediation are *60% less*, on the average, than costs of two
> attorneys.)
>
Okay Vicki, if you're still taking submissions, here's mine.
My partner and his ex went to mediation. They came to a hard won
agreement on custody, child support and division of property. But here in
Ottawa, you really need a lawyer to file the paperwork. So she went back
to her lawyer (who has a reputation for liking to go to court) and he
convinced her that she could get a better deal. So we were without an
agreement for another year, and constantly threatened with withdrawl of
visitation unless DH gave in to ever increasing monthly support demands
(at one point more than a third of BEFORE TAX income was going to her, and
taxes in Canada are more than 40%).
Unless there's some way to keep people from having to go BACK to their
lawyers, I don't think mediation is effective.
BKsGIRL
Vicki Robinson
>
>Unless there's some way to keep people from having to go BACK to their
>lawyers, I don't think mediation is effective.
Sigh. That's the biggest stumbling block that a mediator and his/her
clients face. Here in NY (and I'm betting in most other states) it
takes a lawyer to prepare the paperwork too. The mediator prepares
what is known as a Consent Agreement, and the lawyers put it into the
appropriate language with the correct boilerplate.
Many mediators have relationships (not financial ones, that would be
highly unethical) with attorneys who are mediation-friendly and who
understand the process. If a couple insists on using their own
lawyers, the mediator needs to do a little advance preparation along
the lines of "This is *your* agreement. You two hammered it out, you
both feel that it is fair and workable. Your lawyer is going to do
his or her job as your advocate and tell you that you can 'get more';
but you have already decided what you need and what you are willing to
give. *Don't let your lawyer talk you out of your own hard-won
agreement*!" I don't know if your DH's mediator did that. And, in
any case, sometimes their arguments can be awfully persuasive, in
appealing to the hurt and vindictiveness that lots of folks still
feel. One of *my* strategies is to point out that to have a lawyer
write up the agreement will cost about $250 if they need few changes,
or $150 - $250 *per hour per lawyer* if they start debating all over
again. Money really does talk, and there's nothing wrong with people
understanding that their resources are finite. THe more they pay to
Dewey, Cheatem and Howe, the less there will be for themselves and for
their children.
Not all attorneys are out to shoot down mediated agreements. In fact,
lots of very good mediators are attorneys as well. But they need to
be trained out of the adversarial stance that is a necessary position
for a lawyer, into a cooperative model where everyone aims to win. No
losers.
When you're thinking of mediation, please ask your mediator about
attorneys that will work *with* the agreement, rather than against it.
some...@my-dejanews.com
> In article <6rvjq3$s7j$1...@canoe.xcski.com>, vjr...@canoe.xcski.com (Vicki
> Robinson) wrote:
>
> >
> > What all of you, with the exception of janelaw, are describing is so
> > far from mediation that I have no name for it! ARGH!
> >
> > It's not necessary that both participants come to mediation with noble
> > and pure hearts, having put all of their anger and pain behind them.
> > That's just a little impossible. It is only necessary that both
> > people come to mediation realizing that they have to set the
> > parameters of their separation, they need to provide for the least
> > painful options for their children, and that they can preserve marital
> > assets (which is good for both of them) by going to mediation. (Costs
> > for mediation are *60% less*, on the average, than costs of two
> > attorneys.)
Just wanted to give some hope. My (now) ex and I used mediation. It was
not court-ordered, we just wanted to try that first. We worked out all
details of the children's schedules and child support in a few mediation
sessions before he even moved out. And we stuck to what we agreed to then
without anything in writing for the 2 years it took to finalize the divorce
(and after, too). I thought the mediator was very neutral. When my ex
wanted something that I had a hard time accepting, she worked on finding
ways that I could feel comfortable with what he wanted.
(We were not able to agree on asset division in mediation which is why
things took so long.)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Sian Lee Reid
> slr...@alfred.carleton.ca (Sian Lee Reid) writes
>
> >convinced her that she could get a better deal. So we were without an
> >agreement for another year, and constantly threatened with withdrawl of
> >visitation unless DH gave in to ever increasing monthly support demands
> >(at one point more than a third of BEFORE TAX income was going to her, and
> >taxes in Canada are more than 40%).
>
> I know this is off topic... I'm sorry. I refuse to go near a.c-s
>
> Taxes here in Ca. are more than 40% (almost 50% on the money if you
> combine federal and state and you're in the highest tax bracket)
>
> DH gives the ex (for two kids and spousal support) 38% of his gross
> (before tax) income. And this is using pretty standard formula numbers for
> c/s and s/s in California
>
> This strikes you as particularly high, Sian? And we have 1/3 custody of
> both kids...
>
I would say that it's high, but that it also depends on the situation of
the other parent. I know that in California, they consider the combined
income of both parents. In our case, only our income gets considered.
So, we have 42% joint custody of both children (theoretically... biomom is
not enforcing visitation with my stepson right now, although she is in
contempt of court technically)... We provide them with their own rooms
(her lawyer said she wouldn't give us overnight visitation unless BOTH
children were provided with rooms exclusively for their use). We provide
them with clothing for the time that they are here (biomom buys outerwear
because it's dumb to have two sets). We pay for the lessons they take
when they are with us, activities, educational software, etc... In
effect, we pay pretty much 100% of their expenses while they are in our
care (with the exception of daycare for the youngest, which biomom pays).
We also pay 2/3 of their expenses when they are with biomom.
We earn about 100K/yr (marginal tax rate is 58 percent in Ontario) and
biomom earns 60K. However, DH also has to support me (at the moment) and
our daughter on his income, where biomom only has herself and her kids.
So she is not getting any spousal support. If she were earning very
little or nothing at all, I know we'd be expected to contribute more,
however, if that were the case, rather than just handing over the money to
her, we'd be in court looking for custody.
Sian