Tag Archives: Alternative Dispute Resolution

Important stages in family break-down

Understanding where you are on the journey makes finding your way easier

Usually, one half of the couple initiates the split. They may well have been thinking about the future of the relationship for some time, usually not saying anything to their partner, in case they were wrong and not wanting to make it worse, until they were sure.  When they break the news to their partner that the relationship is over, it means the other person has a lot of emotional catching up to do. Immediately you have the problem of two people being in completely different emotional stages on the grieving cycle. When we mediate for such couples, it is difficult to go fast enough for one or slow enough for the other. It is unhelpful to say things like ‘it’s over, get over it’. There isn’t a get over it switch! Then add to the mix other people, children, friends and family, then the cast of possible professionals who might help, and you are set for a busy time.

 

757953525_671d05cbb6_b

 

So here is the timetable:

    • One partner decides relationship is over, this may have taken then years to decide

 

    • Tells partner

 

    • Period of shock and recriminations – 52 card pick-up

 

    • Partner needs time to adjust to the idea, is often unstable and upset. They have to work through the grieving cycle, so denial, anger, blame, crying, depression, moving on eventually to recovery, acceptance, moving on

 

    • Telling children and extended family and friends makes it real and retraction becomes increasingly unlikely

 

    • Children start on their own cycle of loss and grief

 

    • Couple considers how to sort it out. May seek help from doctors, counsellors, solicitors, mediators.

 

    • Couple may be confused about resolution options, timescale and comparative costs

 

    • Couple may be afraid if they don’t ‘get tough’ they may lose out

 

 

    • Adjustment to separation brings calmer consideration of less nuclear options for sorting out the  future

 

    • Some couples can agree much themselves, some can’t agree anything

 

 

    • Couple chooses resolution option that feels best to them and starts it

 

    • Some change their minds, e.g. Start court proceedings then mediate or vice versa

 

 

However people sort things out, it does take some time. This is partly emotional recovery time and partly the time taken by the chosen route to resolution. The fact is that mediation is by far the fastest and most cost effective process for sorting out separation and divorce and therefore it makes sense to use it first and only choose more expensive and adversarial options if you have to.

 

Make it better not worse – mediate first.

 

Hearing about Mediation before you can apply to Court – why it’s a good idea.

The Children and Families Act came into force on 22nd of April 2014. For the first time it requires would be applicants to court to hear about mediation and how it might be able to help them, before making their court application. This simply gives them a choice of court or mediation before they embark on the court route. As such it is a useful intervention. This meeting is fast becoming known as a ‘mediation awareness meeting’? Its formal name is  the Mediation Intake Assessment Meeting or MIAM.

A qualified mediator will tell couples about mediation and the alternatives to court adjudication. This is greatly needed, as put simply, if mediators don’t tell people about how mediation may help them, mostly people do not understand it and don’t try mediation. Before the compulsory referral to hear about mediation from a mediator in 1999, there were only a few hundred mediations a year. After legal aid applicants had to hear about mediation from a mediator in 1999, this rose to about 13,500 mediations a year and it has stayed about the same every year that is until last May, when all compulsory referrals to a mediator for mediation assessment stopped, along with the abolition of legal aid for family cases. Then, couples unaware of mediation simply went straight to court and the number of court applications has increased massively everywhere, with many fewer mediations taking place. The fact is, in many cases lawyers do not sell mediation, they are more likely to sell legal services and to negotiate the case in a conventional, positional way. This increase in adversarial resolution is bad for families, turning them into opponents in what is often an expensive, long drawn out ‘ping pong’ of letters and court hearings.

shutterstock_66786538b

Compulsory mediation awareness meetings do not mean compulsory mediation, nevertheless many people will choose to go on to mediate and save themselves and their families a great deal of time, money and avoidable stress. If some family lawyers don’t like it, and it is only some lawyers, we have to ask why are they so worried about people simply hearing what mediation has to offer? They don’t have to mediate and no one is saying people should not hear about the legal resolution methods. If people need to go to court, they can still go to court, if they want lawyers to write letters then they can pay for that, but a tiny proportion of cases do actually get decided by a judge, so deciding them even earlier in mediation seems like a good idea to most people.

The reality is that in most disputes over children, the worst thing that can happen to a family is a brutal fight over the children, replete with welfare reports, adversarial arguments and adjudication or shuttle diplomacy between lawyers at court, cobbling something together under immense pressure and making that into an order. A series of mediation sessions over a few weeks or months with changes being introduced and reviewed, improvements made and children’s views taken on board where possible, is just so much better for most families.

Where property and finance issues are concerned, mediation has a massively important role to play in resolving settlements quickly and at proportionate cost. How much do you think should be spent on legal fees  of resolving a financial settlement on divorce? Should it be 10% , 20% or some other proportion of the overall value of the family pot?  This is the thorny problem the courts are not addressing. There is a court rule that the legal costs must be proportionate to the value of a dispute. This is universally ignored, as it seems to convey no meaning to the judges or the legal representatives. It is common for the costs to be half or even more of the value of the dispute – where is the sense in that? If you bear in mind that in most family cases, unless it’s a very short marriage or there’s a pre nup, there is a starting point or yardstick of equal division of the assets, then the value of the dispute is probably no more than between 10% to 25% of the overall pot. Legal costs frequently exceed 10% to 25% of the value of the family pot. How can that to be regarded as proportionate to the value of the dispute? It isn’t proportionate at all.

So, in a nutshell, the changes with regard to compulsory mediation assessment meetings brought in by the Children and Families Act are mostly welcome and long overdue.  Compulsory mediation meetings before court applications can be made will enable a significant number of families to avoid court proceedings and expensive legal costs by choosing mediation, once they know how it can help them. Previously, they often simply issued proceedings and the legal route was the default option. Now a real choice is being offered and it is up to mediators and lawyers alike to help couples make the best choice for their family, taking into account everything relevant to the family.  It is the couple that matters most and finding the best way forward for them, not what matters to the lawyer or the mediator – selling the service they prefer to sell. The family is at the heart of separation and divorce, how they sort out their arrangements, which process they use, should be an informed decision they take and the advent of mediation assessment will help ensure public awareness of mediation when they need it most.

Today’s Challenge: Describe the Benefits of Mediation and What it Does in Two Sentences?

On 22nd May about 150 mediators, judges of various flavours, policy makers and politicians, assembled at The Met in Leeds for the annual Civil Mediation Council (CMC) conference. (We will get to the challenge in a minute). The glitterati of the mediation profession were there, along with those members of the judiciary sympathetic to mediation as a means to resolve disputes. The message from On High was clear, the courts need more cases to settle and avoid trial, as the present demand for adjudication cannot be met, there are not enough courts or judges and there’s certainly not enough money.

Mediation is the most probable alternative to court. It saves time, money and stress, so why don’t people try to mediate before issuing court proceedings? There were many theories, but the most persuasive was that many people want to go to court because they believe the judge will agree with them, they will be vindicated, the ‘other side’ will lose, suffer and be humiliated. They will get what they want. Of course, they probably won’t get what they want, both sides feel the same and can’t both be right.  Also, the costs frequently exceed the value of the dispute by a considerable margin, so it ends up as a poor investment.  Though it’s questionable if applying to court can ever be regarded as an investment; an expensive gamble might be a more accurate description.

Most people wish they’d never started court proceedings long before they end, when everyone is just desperate for it to be over. By then if not before, mediation is usually the best way out and of course, we all know that very few cases go to full trial, so the revenge/ vindication sought is a satisfaction rarely achieved.

BoPN1PBIYAALo64b

We heard from Lord Faulks the government is committed to mediation and wishes to extend its use in the resolution of disputes.  Lord Justice Briggs said the same thing. Then we established that the Jackson reforms last year have not, in fact, increased the take up of mediation as much as expected, despite government policy and reform and the unarguable fact that many cases at court are simply in the wrong forum for sorting them out. People need help with resolution not help with fighting, however angry they feel – it is counter-intuitive. There were workshops examining online mediation, compulsory mediation, mediation in schools, mediation in the political process and ACAS. The constellation of experts assembled was inspiring.

Joshua Rosenberg (BBC legal commentator and expert) helpfully described what mediators should do to increase public awareness of mediation. He had done the training, saw what it could achieve and was all for it – but people don’t know what it can do for them or how it works. He thinks we need a two sentence description of the benefits of mediation and what it can do. Then people may better understand and try mediation, instead of litigating first and regretting it later. So – the challenge is to find two sentences describing mediation in such a way that ordinary people will know what it means. There follow some examples:-

  • Mediation reaches the parts of the dispute that court doesn’t and gives people more choices about their way forward that the Law. Mediation is fast, affordable and starts where you are to sort out disputes in ways acceptable to both of you, so you can move on
  • If you are in dispute resist the temptation to invest your time and money arguing why you are right and fighting, as in the end most people do a deal and the sooner the better.  By mediating first you can save the most time, money and stress. So start by seeing what you can agree in mediation rather than start with an expensive legal ritual that drives you poles apart.
  • When in dispute, think carefully about what you want to achieve. Grind your opponent into the ground? Hurt them like they hurt you? Or sort it out and move on with your life? Mediation lets you end it swiftly and cost effectively. The price of justice is an uncertain outcome at vast expense and with huge delays, the benefits of mediation are fast, affordable certainty and it’s over.  No brainer.

The problem is, these definitions come from a mediator – we thought it would be better if a non mediator writes  the 2 sentences. So, here’s the challenge – £100 voucher for the shop of your choice to the person who comes up with the best two sentence description of mediation. Closing date – 31st August 2014.

The Importance of rodents in my decision to become a mediator

I qualified as a solicitor in 1979 and most of my professional life was spent working as a family lawyer.  In the late 1990s I was handling the usual caseload of mainly financial cases and some children work.  A male client came to my office distraught one Monday morning. His two children had come to him for the weekend as usual and were refusing to go home to their mother with whom they lived.  The problem was caused by the mother’s new husband. He had bought the children’s father out of his share of the house and was beginning to assert his own house rules. I advised that the client the children had to go back immediately to their mother, he could not unilaterally change the children’s residence without the court’s approval or their mother agreeing. The mother most definitely did not agree and urgent faxes arrived threatening immediate court proceedings for restoration of residence, which were subsequently issued and faxed to us as well.
The father became more and more agitated. The children, who were not little, were in the car outside.  They wanted to be heard, but no one could listen to them. They were refusing to go to their mother’s home. They were going to run away and keep running away until they were allowed to stay with their father.  Could they see the judge – no they couldn’t – I knew the judge would not want to see them so they could not tell the judge they were not going to go home.
Whatever could’ve happened to make these children refuse so adamantly to return home to their mother when they had lived with her for so many years, apparently quite happily? The catalyst for their departure was their step-father.  The advent of the stepparents can often completely destabilise an otherwise harmonious home.  Territory can become an issue, we are all, after all, little furry mammals and we do like our nests to feel the way we want them.  There is a big difference between the adult view of the world and the view of children.  These children wanted their hamsters to remain in their bedrooms. They were their hamsters and their bedrooms. Their stepfather was insistent that the hamsters should live in the garage. I suspect this may have been the tip of quite a big iceberg, but it was the presenting factor we solemnly discussed at the door of the court, after the mother had issued her emergency application that Monday morning. I can’t remember the detail, it was a long time ago, but I think that the mother spoke at length with the children. She came to realise that there was no way they were going to go back to live with her. They would come and see her – they wanted a reversal of the arrangement they had had with her and their father for so many years. They wish to live with their father and have regular and generous contact with their mother.

The mother fought through the day. To say she was distraught was an understatement. In the end she had to accept that the children would stay with their father – the case and could not end any other way, as they had told their mother (from the car) and indirectly everyone at court, even the judge, that if they were made to return to their mother’s home, they would keep running away to get back to their father’s until they were allowed to stay there.

280802661_93beab73ed

There then remained the issue of the hamsters, at that time living in the mother’s and stepfather’s garage. It took a long time to negotiate the release of the hamsters, who were clearly hostages inextricably linked in the mother’s mind with having her children and she did not want them to go. I spent some time negotiating the release of the hamsters.   I returned to the office convinced that I had participated in a procedure which was insanely unsuitable and unfit for the purpose it was being used for.  I did not regard this as a sensible way of solving this family problem, nor was it a sensible use of expensive court time and legal expertise. Indeed no legal expertise was required, it was completely irrelevant.

I then discovered Mediation – how much kinder and how much more humane would a meeting have been to discuss all these issues outside court? There might have been a direct consultation with the children, to ascertain their wishes and feelings so that could inform parental decision-making. There was simply no question in my mind, mediation was the future for so many cases that were currently, at that time, being resolved judicially. That was many years ago now and I’m pleased to say that case would today probably be mediated. Things have improved a great deal, but we still have a way to go.

Defusing Arguments

Why argue? The instinct is to try and persuade the other person you are right and they are wrong. In return they are likely to try and persuade you they are right, so the debate begins. Sometimes issues are clarified and a shared understanding emerges, that is a good outcome, but often the opposite happens.  Commonly the dispute is more about the relationship and not wanting to back down, than reaching a shared understanding. Sometimes the original issues are forgotten or changed as the conflict mounts, especially if the debate becomes personal (“that is so typical of you, you don’t give a stuff about anyone . . .’)

157-460-284-0-10-460-268

Once the dispute gets personal, the scene is set for the conflict to escalate and damage  or even destroy the relationship. Sometimes the reason for the conflict IS the relationship, which may involve toxic dynamics that cause endless conflict. The problem is the conflict, not the apparent issue, you know this for sure if there are constant or repeated arguments about anything and everything.

So the argument is the outlet for the conflict, which has a life of its own. One person may try to stop the argument, but the other may block this, arguing relentlessly, expanding the area of disagreement, dragging up old grudges and inventing new ones. Mediators know about conflict, they start where the conflict is, not with the presenting disagreement, as that is often incidental.

How can you defuse arguments?

Well, first of all start where the other person is. Listen to them, understand what they are saying, show that you understand by summarising to them what they told you. Then ask them a question about it, make them think, perhaps they might not be exactly right? Always focus on the issues and speak calmly and precisely, preferably don’t sound as though you are laying down the law. Better to be questioning as people always believe things they work out for themselves. Carefully avoid personal attacks and adopt logical explanatory reasoning, never blowing things out of proportion or attacking the other person.  Suggest adjourning the discussion to another time, when everyone has calmed down. Say you want to ‘think’ thus introducing the idea that people can change their minds thoughtfully without loss of face and power.  Try not to tell or boss  the other person, instead ask them relevant questions, which may begin ‘What if . . ‘ or ‘do you think that . . .?

Fighting Over Nothing

When is disagreement about something and when is it about nothing?

Perhaps it may help to rephrase that… Often conflict causes disagreements about not very much or even nothing at all! The problem is the conflict, not the issue.  We see this all the time in mediation. It’s why mediation is so much better at resolving disputes than litigation. The legal system can only deal with the legal basis of disagreements, even if there isn’t really a legal basis, it cannot help with the non legal conflict drivers, even when that is the problem that needs sorting out.

Let’s look at a typical example. Two children are deeply jealous of their mother’s attention for the other child.  They grow up and courteously dislike each other. They always compete for parental time and attention and resent the time the mother spends with their sibling. If challenged they would deny this, but the conflict is deeply embedded in their sub conscious minds, it will never go away and informs all their exchanges in relation to their mother. That mother becomes ill and develops Dementia. One of them starts to look after her. The other has difficulty seeing the mother and is sometimes denied access. There are huge control issues and a legal dispute may well emerge. On the face of it that dispute will be about the Power of Attorney, who controls the mother’s money or makes decisions about her health and welfare. There may be a dispute about her jewellery all the terms of her Will, whether she had capacity to make the Will or Power of Attorney, particularly if it favours one sibling over the other. Was it fair, was it right or was undue influence brought to bear on the elderly parent?

In reality, assessing the capacity of someone with dementia is notoriously difficult, as it comes and goes. So legal proceedings on this can be fraught with difficulty and be a bit of a gamble. Also, the dispute originates in the sibling relationship and entrenched conflict. The legal dispute is an expression of that. Hence settling that litigation will be really hard, because it isn’t just about the legal rights and wrongs. Costs will mount and relationships worsen and all the time the cure would be mediation. Mediation is the medicine that reaches the parts litigation can’t reach. Mediation deals with the root cause, not the symptoms. Litigation in cases like this is akin to amputation for an infection. Treat the infection and you may well preserve something precious and save great suffering and stress. Litigate and the losses can be incalculable. It certainly rarely improves the situation!

shutterstock_181569293

It’s the same in the workplace, in the work team. If people can’t get along they quarrel and precious work time and energy is wasted in their conflict.  If the the conflict is bad enough then stalemate can result, paralysing your business. Yet the reason you may have recruited two very different people and asked them to work together may be good.  They may have a complimentary skills and you want to stop the conflict between them and harness their different skills to produce useful outcomes for your business. The legal remedy is disciplinary or grievance procedures and finally termination or redundancy. This is an incredibly expensive gamble and diverts you and your team from what you want to be doing – running the business. A workplace mediator can often help teams work together, solving your problem so amputation isn’t necessary.

So when you seem to have an intractable problem between people, ask yourself is it ‘them’ or the presenting issue? If you solve this issue, will there always be something else? Might a chat with a mediator be the most use to you?
You have nothing to lose and quite a lot to gain.

The Children and Families Act 2014 – Family Law is Changing

Heralded as the biggest change to the family law system in a generation, will today’s changes to the family legal system make any difference to real families? Certainly, shortening the time taken   for important cases about children in care to be decided by the courts will be a big improvement.  Children caught up in the care system were previously waiting over a year for their cases to be decided, which is far too long and very bad for those children’s happiness and life chances. The new time limit for a decision will be six months, a great improvement.

 

However, what about the majority of the families needing help sorting things out? For most families some of the changes are more apparent than real. Arguments over arrangements for the children are not likely to improve because people are supposed to avoid the words ‘residence’ and ‘contact’, just as they didn’t change when we swapped the words ‘custody’ and ‘access’ for ‘residence’ and ‘contact’. The issue of who the children live with when is still a thorny one and changing the words to ‘child arrangements’ makes little difference. Other than that, there is a change to a theoretical single family court, but again, this means that cases can be allocated to the county court where there are professional judges or the magistrates where there are lay (but trained) magistrates – but both will now be called the “Family Court”.  Will this make a huge material difference to court users given the decision-makers and buildings will be the same as before the name changed to “Family Court” remains to be seen!  There will still be the High Court for cases needed high court adjudication.  Some cases that would previously have been decided by a judge may be heard by a magistrate – but it will all be the “Family Court” so that’s all right then!

 

People who can afford it may feel increasingly inclined to pay for private adjudication by a family law expert in the field, to ensure the quality of the decision – this is called arbitration and might produce a dual system of private justice completely outside the state court system. It would save government money, but create a dual system for the haves and have-nots. There could be an issue over the quality of the decisions and interpretation of the law, if many complex and difficult cases are decided by non family law experts.

 

Against this background family mediation looks like a very sane and sensible option.  An experienced, qualified mediator helps a couple to make their own arrangements for their children and settle their own financial settlement.  The impartial mediator gives relevant legal information to help decision-making and the couple know what they are agreeing to. It is a fast affordable alternative to the vagaries of the court system and at least now people have to hear about mediation properly from a mediator.  Couples share the cost of the mediator and pay nothing if they qualify for legal aid, whereas there is no legal aid for most family law work any more, there is for family mediation. If couples don’t mediate they have to pay the whole costs of their separate lawyers, instead of share the cost of their mediation.  Before anyone can bring a court application they will mostly now have to hear about mediation before they can apply to court. This last change is one of the most sensible changes the new Act brings in and it is long overdue. Court fees are expensive and rising –  pointless if unnecessary. People will now be given a real choice and awareness of the options for sorting out their settlement and arrangements without using the conventional legal and court route. Mediation is the prime alternative and mediators can now explain it to couples properly, instead of people assuming it’s unsuitable for them or not even realising it exists and that legal aid still exists to help them mediate.

 

shutterstock_66786538b

 

The Children and Families Act comes into force on 22nd of April 2014

For the first time it requires would be applicants to court to hear about mediation and how it might be able to help them, before making their court application. This simply gives them a choice of court or mediation before they embark on the court route. As such it is a useful intervention. This meeting is fast becoming known as a ‘mediation awareness meeting’ – its formal name is the Mediation Intake Assessment Meeting or MIAM.  A qualified mediator will simply tell couples about mediation and the alternatives to court adjudication.
This is greatly needed, as put simply, if mediators don’t tell people about how mediation may help them, mostly people do not understand it and don’t try mediation. Before the compulsory referral to hear about mediation from a mediator in 1999, there were only a few hundred mediations a year. After legal aid applicants had to hear about mediation from a mediator in 1999, this rose to about 13,500 mediations a year and it has stayed about the same every year until last May, when all compulsory referrals to a mediator for mediation assessment stopped along with the abolition of legal aid for family cases. Then couples unaware of mediation simply went straight to court and the number of court applications has increased massively everywhere, with many fewer mediations taking place. The fact is, in many cases lawyers do not sell mediation; they are more likely to sell legal services and to negotiate the case in a conventional positional way. This increase in adversarial resolution is bad for families, turning them into opponents in what is often an expensive, long drawn out ping pong of letters and or court hearings.

 

Compulsory mediation awareness meetings do not mean compulsory mediation, but many people will choose to go on to mediate and save themselves and their families a great deal of time, money and avoidable stress. If some family lawyers don’t like it, and it is only some lawyers, we have to ask why are they so worried about people simply hearing what mediation has to offer? These people don’t have to mediate and no one is saying people should not hear about legal resolution methods. If people need to go to court, they can still go to court, if they want lawyers to write letters then they can pay for that, but a tiny proportion of cases do actually get decided by a judge, so deciding them even earlier in mediation seems like a good idea to most people.

 

The reality is that in most disputes over children, the worst thing that can happen to a family is a brutal fight over the children, replete with welfare reports, adversarial arguments and adjudication or shuttle diplomacy between lawyers at court, cobbling something together under immense pressure and making that into an order. A series of mediation sessions over a few weeks or months with changes being introduced and reviewed, improvements made and children’s views taken on board where possible, is just so much better for most families.

 

Where property and finance issues are concerned, mediation has a massively important role to play in resolving settlements fast and at proportionate cost. How much do you think should be spent on legal fees for resolving a financial settlement on divorce? Should it be 10% or 20% or some other proportion of the overall value of the family pot?  This is the thorny problem the courts are not addressing. There is a court rule that the legal costs must be proportionate to the value of a dispute. This is universally ignored, as it seems to convey no meaning to the judges or the legal representatives. It is common for the costs to be a third or half or even more of the value of the dispute – where is the sense in that? If you bear in mind that in most family cases, unless it’s a very short marriage or there’s a pre-nup., there is a starting point or yardstick of equal division of the assets, then the value of the dispute is probably no more than between 10% to 25% of the overall pot. Legal costs frequently exceed 10% to 25% of the value of the family pot. How can that to be regarded as proportionate to the value of the dispute? It isn’t proportionate at all.

 

So, in a nutshell, the changes with regard to compulsory mediation assessment meetings brought in by the Children and Families Act are mostly welcome and long overdue.  Compulsory mediation meetings before court applications can be made will enable a significant number of families to avoid court proceedings and expensive legal costs by choosing mediation, once they know how it can help them. Previously they often simply issued proceedings and the legal route was the default option. Now a real choice is being offered and it is up to mediators and lawyers alike to help couples make the best choice for their family, taking into account everything relevant to the family.  It is the couple that matters most and finding the best way forward for them, not what matters to the lawyer or the mediator – each trying to sell the service they prefer to sell. The family is at the heart of separation and divorce, how they sort out their arrangements, which process they use should be an informed decision they take and the advent of mediation assessment will help ensure public awareness of mediation when they need it most.  This is needed simply because without it as we have seen, people do not know about mediation or find out about it until it is too late.  There has to be a compulsory  mediation awareness stage  as once people have started going down the court route, mediation referral can be a bit late for many of them to gain the most benefit in terms of the expense, stress and delays of court proceedings.

Conflict Junkies

People addicted to conflict – what does it mean? Who are they?

Sometimes, perhaps often, solving intractable problems is so difficult, we can’t. We don’t want to try. So the easy answer is to blame someone else and create a distraction. That distraction may be conflict. It diverts attention from the real insoluble problem, by focusing instead on arguments and blame.

shutterstock_82414321

In some families the conflict is habitual and embedded. Everyday discussions are conducted with aggravation, simply because that is how that family operates and relates to one another. Once, in a family mediation, a couple  habitually argued unstoppably – then every so often, they would resolve some point and divert into another vicious exchange from which they would not be diverted by the mediator. Eventually when there was a pause, the mediator asked “What would you do if you stopped arguing?”
The couple looked astonished. “We wouldn’t have anything to talk about . . .”

What do Mediators do?

One of the main objectives in mediation is to give people insights. Insights that help them understand the effect of their actions and of their style of communication on their families. This responsibility does not stop with divorce – where there are children it becomes even more important.  Sharing parental duties and responsibilities is more complex through circumstances. Mediators try to help people commit to changing to improve outcomes for their children, as well as make life easier and less stressful for themselves as parents.

Everyone perceives the world from their own perspective. It takes empathy to imagine events from another’s perspective and helping to achieve that without accusation or blame is a mediation skill. For example, a parent with a long journey around the M25 in the rush hour may be exhausted and irritable by the time they arrive to see their children. If the children have conked out and gone to bed and the other parent angrily relays the disappointment of their offspring, conflict is probable. Add the guilt induced through hearing the account of their children waiting with noses pressed against the window watching for them and the scene is set for trouble.  Situations like this are standard fare in family mediation. The same or similar scenes present in a multitude of variations, but the underlying problems are the same. There is the disappointment of the children, the exhaustion anger and disappointment of the parents. The couple’s own history of miscommunication brings them to this latest re-enactment of their disastrous repetition of previous recriminations, accusations and blame.

Can the mediator intervene effectively enough to help them break the habits of a life-time? Can insights bring about change? It depends how much people want to change. Surprisingly, the worse it is for them, the more likely they are to decide (and it has to be a joint decision) to commit to ground rules to stop the re-enactments of the past.  Next Friday the mediator will not be there, but the rules agreed with her in mediation will be in their minds and hopefully the scene is set for a different outcome.

shutterstock_74106811

Much communication is either non-verbal or relayed partly through expression and tone of voice. The same words can convey completely opposite meanings if said angrily than if said in a soft affectionate way. Some people have learned to negotiate assertively in large pushy families and others have learned to negotiate totally differently, by offering and declining, and needing to be pressed to accept something they really desire. Then there are cultural and other layers of meaning that can cause complete confusion, it is a wonder we understand each other as well as we do.

It is common to find in mediation that a couple are repeating a train track type conversation,  they have had countless times. They know it ends in dead-lock, but seem to be irresistibly drawn to repeat it. “See, it’s hopeless s/he doesn’t understand . . . ”   The appeal is to the mediator to translate. This is called re-framing. The mediator hears what is said and re-phrases it so the other person gets the meaning. This can be through a more neutral form of words or different tone of voice, or both.

Many couples want the mediator to shuttle between them to spare themselves the stress of having to meet. That can work well, but if parents have to communicate over children, then shuttle mediation is unlikely to help much, as they parents need to learn to understand each other without the mediator. By not meeting and communicating with the mediator’s help, shuttle mediation does not help mend the underlying communication problem.  Mediation is the main – if not only method parents can gain the insights they need to make changes enabling them to communicate better in future, unless they attend counselling, despite their separation.

Mediation is hard work – but worth it.

Gold Standard for Family Mediators

At Focus we celebrate our successes and the attainment by our mediators of significant professional achievements. Our family mediators work hard towards the achievement of their recognition as a fully competent mediator, qualified to mediate cases for the Legal Aid Agency. Whilst very few of our cases are legal aid these days, we still put our trainees through that competence assessment, simply because it is so demanding and is the Gold Standard for family mediators.

blog1
Our trainees work hard under close supervision with very experienced mediators and this training takes one to two years of intensive work. We have two professional Practice Consultants in our team to help with this training. This year we have got two mediators through their competence portfolio, Geraldine and Joanna. They have been duly crowned and handed their magic wands (essential equipment for every mediator) as well as being supplied with a large amount of ‘Emergency Chocolate’ to help them through those extra stressful and difficult cases. Well done Geraldine and Jo!

%d bloggers like this: