Tag Archives: mediation

Mediation Assessment

Mr Ministrio O Justice and Ms Accessa D Justice have been referred to this service following a breakdown of their relationship, for the purposes of a mediation assessment appointment. I have met with both parties and can report as follows:

  • There is a significant power imbalance as Ministrio is the sole breadwinner and Accessa is financially dependent upon him.
  • Mr Justice has been accused of serious acts of violence towards Ms Justice and there is concern that both she and the parties’ children (Litiganta and Citizen) are vulnerable and at risk of harm. The court may in due course need to make findings about this. There are clearly significant disputes of fact and interpretation that make progress very difficult.
  • Throughout our session Mr Justice found it very difficult to be positive about Accessa, and was unable to describe her without resorting to denigratory and belittling language. He was unable to acknowledge her contribution towards the relationship, financially or otherwise.
  • When attempting to discuss the issues with Ministrio the conversation had a tendency to become circular as Ministrio repeatedly sought to discuss the immediate financial issues, diverting the discussion away from the broader issues and the longer term consequences of any settlement.
  • Ms Justice is emotionally fragile and tells me that she is thinking of “giving up”. I am concerned for her welfare.
  • The relationship between the parties has (on Accessa’s account) been characterised by repeated attempts to bully and control Accessa.
  • Mr Ministrio Justice has adopted a very fixed view of what the outcome of  the process should be, and is unable to fully engage with the open and honest exploration of the issues that the mediation process depends upon. Mediation is unlikely to be successful unless both parties are ready to adapt their views and compromise.
  • There are serious and complex legal issues that we are unable to resolve through this process.
  • The communication between the parties is poor and trust is non-existent.

I therefore certify that in my professional opinion this case is not suitable for mediation.

Lucy Reed

Member of the Institute of (Made Up) Mediators

A GIFT from the MoJ

I was charmed to receive in my inbox today an invitation to help The Man promote the new policy of compulsory thinking-about-mediation. How kind. The editorial and content team at the MoJ thought the press release might be “good fuel for Pinktape”. Adrian would like me to help him raise awareness “that there is an alternative that is likely to cost them less and be quicker” than court. But you see I am one step ahead of him – in a wholly uncustomary failure on the part of the Government to listen to those at the coal face, Adrian has apparently neglected to notice that I have already posted on this topic (here).

But waste not want not. He is correct, the press release is combustible and I can generate some heat at least, if not light.

Firstly, I will take the cheap points (if I may). They are an unnecessary distraction from the more meaty ones:

  • The new scheme is not an adjunct to the Family Proceedings Rules because they will be revoked as of 6 April 2011 and replaced with Family Procedure Rules 2010. It doesn’t matter in the slightest, but if you are going to tinker with the name of your rules for no apparent reason you ought not to get them wrong in your own press release. Four times.
  • The choice of language is pretty base: “More Separating Couples To Be Spared Court Battles!”. Fighting each other through lawyers”. I actually do wear body armour at court. Actually. Sometimes we even settle cases by arm wrestling in the advocates room. Or by particularly vicious bouts of conkers. I do the Hakka every morning before I leave the house to get myself in the right frame of mind.
  • I like this best: “Jonathan Djanogly said: “Nearly every time I ask someone if their stressful divorce battle through the courts was worth it, their answer is no.”” (*stage whisper* Mr Djanogly? Um. This is what we battling lawyers call “a leading question”.)

Personally I don’t have quite sufficient stamina tonight to construct a careful counter to Mr Djangoly’s casual approach to statistics and evidence. But here is what is glaringly obvious from the face of the fatuous press release.  Continue Reading…

Practice Directions to the New Family Procedure Rules 2010 – Mediation PD

I posted recently about the Practice Directions to the new Family Procedure Rules which come into force on 6 April. Practice Direction 3A Pre-Application Protocol for Mediation Information and Assessment has now been published along with a guidance note and Compliance Form FM1.

It provides that parties to private family proceedings must prior to issue have explored whether mediation might be an alternative method by which to resolve their dispute by attending a mediation information and assessment meeting. If they have not done this the court is likely on first hearing to adjourn pending attendance at such a meeting which constitutes non-compliance with the Protocol. Continue Reading…