Back when I lived in Jamestown, New York, mediation was a huge kickback racket pushed by "I Love Being a Dad," the local fathers rights group. They obviously saw mediation as a way for batterers to get the "upper hand" in a custodial "dispute," as becomes apparent when you read the history below.
Here's the background: Family Services of Jamestown, at least in mid-1990s, administered a Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (PEACE) program that was marketed as a statewide “dispute resolution” program offering an “alternative approach to resolving the issues of custody and visitation.”
The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV)—to mention just one domestic violence organization—strongly cautioned against the use of counseling, alternative dispute resolution services, or mediation for persons who have been in abusive relationships. Usually, such programs are found to pose significant safety concerns and to encourage victim-blaming and “compromise.”
Given this, it’s highly suggestive that the president of “I Love Being a Dad,” a Jamestown FRs association affiliated with Fathers’ Rights Association of New York (FRANY), served on the board of Family Services of Jamestown and that “I Love Being a Dad” promoted its mediation services in its organizational literature.
It also should be noted that when another board member of “I Love Being a Dad” was charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree and criminal trespassing in the second degree subsequent to an incident at his ex-wife’s house, the fathers’ rights board member in question actually sent a letter to the Jamestown Post-Journal arguing that counseling or mediation (rather than his arrest) would represent “better ways of dealing with unresolved feelings and issues.” Unfortunately, the board member in question was apparently incapable of following through on his own advice, as he was soon thereafter charged with harassment in yet another incident.
This is what fathers rights people are all about, whether it's in Jamestown, California, Australia, or elsewhere. Nothing but a lot of petty criminals attempting to pass themselves off as "concerned fathers." In reality, all they want to do it continue their abuse and coercive control of their families.
Notes
New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, “Model Domestic Violence Policy for Counties,” January 1999, at http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/coordination/model_policy/guiding.html.
Cheryl Mason, “Fathers Cope with Being Part-Time Parents,” Jamestown Post-Journal, October 26, 1997.
Jamestown Post-Journal, December 28, 2003; Jamestown Post-Journal, January 11, 2004; Jamestown Post-Journal, January 25, 2004.
Guess what, folks! My daughter is 18 today, so no more joint custody with her abusive father, no more corrupt, incompetent idiots interfering in our lives! I no longer care about threats from the "authorities" in Chautauqua County. Now it's time to drag their manure into the light of day.
http://justice.posterous.com/trade-promotion-press-release-touts-pretextuaAlert: Mediators make misrepresentations in order to convince dv victims to use their services
A press release at http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/illinois-divorce-mediation-for-victims-of-domestic-violence-152006.php by Wolfe & Stec, Ltd. of Dupage County, Illinois, claims that mediation should be permitted in domestic violence cases. They claim that women could save money using mediation, and that "the no-mediation policy is in place because of the belief that a domestic violence victim may be intimidated or manipulated by his or her abuser in a mediation setting."
This is a half-truth -- which means it's a misrepresentation, i.e. a false statement. The no-mediation policy also is in place because domestic violence victims need enforceable custody arrangements, financial awards, and court orders that will help protect them and their children for years going forward. Abusers aren't going to agree to these. And the majority of intimidation and coercion takes place outside of the legal system, not in the presence of third parties.
The press release claims that dv victims have been "denied access to mediation to resolve" their family court issues. These claims are specious. There is no "resolution" of child custody issues in family court with a committed abuser. At best, a mediated agreement only postpones the issues -- and costs -- to the almost inevitable post-decree litigation, when even women who originally had lawyers may no longer have representation. Worse, agreed settlements not only cannot be appealed, but also mean that evidentiary findings did not get into the case record.
These mediators' ostensible desire to give dv victims the "choice" to have mediation ignores that unrepresented women without funds are even more susceptible to coercion outside of the legal system, and not only might not fully raise the history of abuse to a mediator, but also (thanks to press releases such as the above) might not realize what rights they do have, such as that courts have the power to order their husbands to pay their attorneys' fees. (Mediators are not permitted to give legal advice, and are not required by ethical rules to assure fair or beneficial "resolutions".)
Nor is any mediator going to be liable if a woman "chooses" incorrectly. Consider these contradictory CYA trade promotion statements right in the same press release:
"...the problem with a total ban on mediation is that victims of spousal abuse often do not have sufficient resources to hire an attorney..."
"It is important for victims of domestic violence to...discuss their options with a qualified attorney... experienced representation can mean a world of difference either in court or in mediation."
Of the hundreds of emails Justice gets every year from women who are in post-decree misery, overwhelmingly, the majority dug themselves (or were thrown) into a hole when they initially "agreed" to joint custody orders and/or inadequate financial settlements in the hope that this would "resolve" the issues. Very often these agreements were made in mediation, and sometimes even while represented by lawyers wanting to get out of their case. Courts and judges are far from perfect, but mediating abuse cases is rarely the solution (especially without shrewd and calculated attorney representation in connection with the decision to do so and the process). If anything, the above press release proves that these mediators do not understand domestic violence or what kind of "resolution" is required by dv victims and their children.
[By the way, we do not recommend "caucus" mediation procedure for anyone in family law cases. In the caucus procedure, instead of sitting around a table, the parties remain in separate rooms while the mediator deliberately filters, interprets, and recasts their respective statements and positions, going back and forth between the parties and urging them to agree. But the information blackout goes both ways. Empowered negotiation requires a party to be able to assess the other's exact words, demeanor and expressions in order to discern the other's goals and intentions. This is particularly important for victims of abuse because abusers can present well to third parties who can fail to recognize disguised meanings and motives and thus ignorantly, even if unintentionally, misrepresent what is actually going on. It is unlikely in these days of "shared parenting" goals and fatherhood exaltation, and exhortations to speak only nicely of "co-parents", that any process designed to keep certain kinds of information from the parties in order to get them to compromise and settle is going to benefit dv victims or protective mothers.]
See the liz library for more information on "therapeutic jurisprudence".
