ADR NEWS FROM THE COURTS - By Christine W. Yurgelun

The Department of Revenue at Suffolk:

The Probate and Family Court established pilot, on-site screening programs in the Suffolk and Middlesex Divisions in collaboration with the Department of Revenue’s Child Support Enforcement Division (DOR). The aim was to determine the appropriateness and acceptability of mediation in those cases where never-married parents were brought before the court for support-related matters. The DOR also funded an additional service at Suffolk: on-site mediation. This service offered parents a mediator’s assistance to develop a parenting plan and to discuss visitation issues immediately following the screening (and prior to their court appearance).  The issue of (level of) support was excluded by the DOR as a topic for  possible negotiation during these  mediation sessions.

The Massachusetts Access and Visitation Project is funded through a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (federal welfare reform) to assist states in developing programs to facilitate positive visitation experiences in low conflict relationships. Because studies suggest that children who have contact with their non-custodial parent are more likely to receive child support, both the DOR and the courts have an interest in promoting opportunities for mutually-agreed upon resolutions to custody and/or visitation disputes.

Typically, all of the DOR’s cases are heard as a “block” on the same day each week. “Block Day” is Thursday at Suffolk. The Access and Visitation Parent Orientation Program is conducted each Thursday morning, prior to the commencement of the DOR’s cases being heard that day. After hearing a presentation and watching a video covering such issues as the importance of co-parenting, the effects of conflict on children, and the emotional and financial needs of children, the attending parents are introduced to the possibility of mediation. In order to build on the Access and Visitation Parent Orientation Program previously established at Suffolk, the Suffolk Division was selected as the location of the pilot on-site screening and mediation programs. When both the mother and the father of the same child attended the same Access and Visitation parent orientation program, the “pairs” were directed to the on-site screener. (Attendance at the parent orientation is not mandatory).  

We were able to establish a consistent approach to conducting screening sessions, refine screening protocols and reporting forms with Josh Hoch, an experienced mediator and the Director of Mediation Services at Mediation Works, Inc., serving as the screener at Suffolk every week. Through his weekly work, Josh became familiar with - and to - DOR personnel. As a result he forged successful working relationships with DOR staff. We were pleased that on several occasions, DOR attorneys self-referred their cases for screening and mediation, and that those litigants were able to develop parenting plans.

All ADR programs previously approved in Suffolk pursuant to SJC Rule 1:18 (the Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution) were invited to participate in the pilot on-site mediation program. MCFM was one of four programs which elected to do so, and the four programs were assigned weekly dates on a rotational basis; each program then contacted and scheduled the individual mediators serving on its behalf. (Those approved programs which did not elect to provide on-site mediation at the courthouse still remained on the list as approved to receive referrals from the screener if the parties elected to pursue off-site mediation.) The individuals serving on behalf of MCFM were drawn from MCFM’s certified mediator roster and included Frank Benson, June, Karen Levitt and Les Wallerstein.

Update:

From July 5, 2001 through May 3, 2002, ninety-one pairs (mother and father of same child) attended an on-site ADR screening session at Suffolk. Of those, forty-six cases were determined to be appropriate for, and elected to participate in, the on-site mediation program. With the assistance of the on-site mediator, thirty-nine parenting plans were developed and entered in Suffolk.   

Regrettably, continuation of the pilot on-site screening and mediation programs, as well as the Access and Visitation Parent Orientation Program at Suffolk and Middlesex is uncertain. Discussions about funding are ongoing. The Probate and Family Court is grateful for MCFM’s support, participation and coordinating efforts, and especially the on-site mediation services provided by MCFM's mediators.

The Supreme Judicial Court's Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution:

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) appointed a Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution in 1993. Its purpose was to advise the SJC and the Chief Justice for Administration and Management regarding standards for court-connected dispute resolution services, and the implementation of and oversight of court-connected dispute resolution throughout the trial court. The Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC  Rule 1:18) were approved and adopted by the SJC on May 1, 1998 and became effective February 1, 1999.

Update:

A recent letter from Chief Justice Marshall to Judge John Cratsley indicated that the Standing Committee will be reconstituted as a Trial Court Committee, “making it smaller and more court-based.” However, in light of the uncertainties generated by the current fiscal crisis, the transfer to the Trial Court will be postponed for at least a year. On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, the SJC held a reception to thank the members of the Standing Committee for their service. Justice Sosman and Chief Justice Dortch-Okara expressed appreciation for the committee members’ dedication and hard work.        

The SJC will appoint a “new” committee over the summer.  It is expected that the reconstituted committee will include both continuing and new members. Judge Cratsley will continue as chair of the committee. In addition to the chairperson, the committee will consist of one member from each of the (seven) Trial Court Departments, one member from the Administrative Office of the Trial Court, and up to four individuals from outside the court system. The Chief Justices of each of the seven departments will be asked for names of individuals whom they wish to nominate to serve as their department’s representatives.               

The Supreme Judicial Court deferred consideration of proposed Rule 8 (Qualifications), but Chief Justice Marshall has indicated that the SJC Rules Committee will discuss the rule at its next meeting. Judge Cratsley expects that the members of the reorganized standing committee will take up Rule 8 as their first order of business when committee meetings start again in October.

Christine W. Yurgelun is the coordinator of court-connected dispute resolution services for the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court. She can be contacted at (617) 788-6600. ADR Court News was published in MCFM's Family Mediation Quarterly, Summer, 2002.  See <www.mcfm.org> for further information  

Click here to return to the top of the page.

Click here to return to the article index.