News

Hazel Wright’s article examining the benefits of mediation in Solicitors Journal

  • October 19, 2016
  • By Hunters Law

Family mediation: The depressingly low take-up

In July 2016 the Ministry of Justice released figures for the preliminary mediation information and assessment meetings (MIAMs), which have to be attended (with very few exemptions) by all who want to use the family courts to resolve disputes on separation over children or money. Of the 20,693 applications in the first quarter of 2016, fewer than half of the applications contained a completed certificate about MIAMs. It is unlikely that all uncompleted forms were from applicants exempt from this certificate (reasons include domestic violence, involvement of Social Services in welfare issues, at least one of the couple lives abroad).

Attendance at mediation should not be compulsory. The voluntary and consensual nature that underpins the success of the process. For money cases, a mediator who also practices as a solicitor can make a huge difference. Clients are entitled to have legal information when considering issues such as transferring a home, sharing a pension.

Receipt of information about mediation should be compulsory for all in the family courts, with no exemptions. Judges could refuse to proceed with a case unless they know this has been done, not least on the basis of “proportionality” which test includes the use of court time.

Particularly where children are involved, specialist therapeutic services save long-lasting emotional wear and tear, as well as precious court resources. Tavistock Relationships’ recent ground-breaking work with CAFCASS “Parents In Dispute” helped 30 families with a combined total of 2,613 weeks (50.25 years) in court. The longest case had been using court time for 358 weeks.

Relation Hubs, a local resource for all separating families, could offer mediation and therapeutic services, without any perceived stigma which can be attached to out of court dispute resolution as a soft option.

Mediation fits the current zeitgeist for self-autonomy (for example the growth of prenups, and businesses such as Uber and Air B’n’B) where individuals work things out for themselves.

How many mediators does it take to change a light bulb? None, the couple do it for themselves.

This article was originally published in Solicitors Journal, and can be found here.

Hazel Wright 

Partner, Hunters incorporating May, May & Merrimans.

Related News

Feb 26, 2021
Richard Kershaw considers the implications of Mr Justice Cohen’s judgment in FRB v DRC (No 3) in Family Law Week
Feb 25, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines the impact of market volatility on divorce settlements in Finance Monthly
Feb 24, 2021
Polly Atkins examines whether one can charge an ex-spouse rent whilst waiting for their home to sell
Feb 19, 2021
Richard Kershaw examines whether you can re-open a divorce settlement due to Covid-19 in Edward Fennell’s Legal Diary
Feb 02, 2021
Amy Scollan discusses divorce and luxury assets
Feb 01, 2021
Richard Kershaw discusses recent case where an unmarried couple have been ordered to share investment assets
Jan 18, 2021
Family Mediation Week 2021
Nov 19, 2020
Jay Patel and Polly Atkins examine family law in the lead up to Brexit in Family Law Week
Nov 09, 2020
Richard Kershaw discusses trusts on divorce and their role in financial planning strategies
Nov 05, 2020
Hunters recognised in The Times Best Law Firms 2021

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website 'hunterslawllp.com' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.