{3 minutes to read} I received a phone call from Kelly* last week expressing some concern about the comments I made during our last session. Apparently, Kelly felt that I was taking sides when I informed Mark* that his legal obligation to pay child support ended when his son turned 21.
In that session, Kelly informed me that the two of them had worked this out at home prior to coming in for mediation and had agreed that Mark would pay child support until their son was 23 years old.
I pointed out that, if he did this, his son could live on his own and not go to work or school, leaving Mark legally liable to support him. I also explained that alternatively, Mark could voluntarily pay child support beyond age 21.
Armed with that information, Mark decided that he did not want to create a legal obligation to pay child support beyond age 21. Kelly was not ok with this, and accused me of siding with Mark and not remaining neutral.
In response, I explained that one of my roles as a mediator was to make sure each of them were making informed decisions. In addition, I believe it is my responsibility to make sure that they are both considering the long-term consequences of their decisions.
I also recommend that couples not try to settle things on their own at home. One of the reasons I do this is to avoid what happened here; couples “agreeing” to terms at home that they, or at least one of them, later determine are not in their best interest.
I believe that I would be remiss if I were to simply “scribe” the terms of an agreement a couple has reached on their own, without informing them of the legal implications and pointing out the long term consequences of their agreement.
* Names have been changed
Share with Friends:
Need More Information?
To schedule a free phone or video consultation, complete and submit the form below, email us at [email protected], or call 518-529-5900.
I’m in total agreement with you on this approach, Dan. Especially when one or both clients choose not to consult with their own lawyers, I believe we have an ethical obligation to inform them of the legal and practical effects of their decisions
I empathize with you Dan, for unfortunately, people want to hear what works for their agenda versus neutral information. While I understand this realistically – we all “want what we want” if you will, hearing what we want is not the purpose of seeking a mediator out. I work with many couples and have been accused of being biased toward one or the other. I state, what I believe is the fact: That is their perception, but not the truth. Your work as a mediator is so important, and as a professional working with couples, neutrality is the right decision on your part, while explaining all the legal aspects and future outcomes. I’m sorry that your earnest and honest expertise was challenged.