HD68 - Mediation of Child Support, Custody and Visitation

  • Published: 1989
  • Author: General Assembly. Joint Subcommittee
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 246 (Regular Session, 1987)

Executive Summary:
AUTHORITY FOR THE STUDY

House Joint Resolution No. 246, agreed to by the 1987 .Session, directs a joint subcommittee to study issues related to the mediation of child support, custody and visitation. The study is to include an investigation of the quality and effectiveness of mediation services in the Commonwealth, availability and coordination of these services, and standards for programs and for education and training of mediators. The joint subcommittee is also directed to consider certain legal issues raised by mediation, including the binding nature of such agreements, confidentiality of information revealed, liability of mediators, and court-ordered participation. The joint subcommittee is to consult with the judiciary, the Bar and existing mediation services in the Commonwealth. The study is to be completed by November 15, 1988, with the submission of an interim report to the 1988 Session of the General Assembly (see Appendix).

ACTIVITIES OF THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE

The joint subcommittee met three times during 1987. Mediators practicing in a variety of settings described their programs and addressed mediation issues. Mediators appearing before the joint subcommittee included JoAnn Jackson of the Sixteenth District Juvenile Court Service Unit in Charlottesville. Karen Asaro of the Virginia Beach Department of Social Services described her agency's mandatory mediation program, begun in 1980 in cooperation with the local judiciary. Representatives of the Community Mediation Center, a community-supported program in Harrisonburg, described that unique program. Representing private mediation programs, Taswell Hubard described his divorce mediation activities within his law practice in Norfolk, and Emily Brown, licensed clinical social worker and Director of the Divorce and Marital Stress Clinic in Arlington, reviewed the mediation activities of her program and addressed mediation issues. Ms. Brown, chair of the Education Committee for the Academy of Family Mediators, also discussed the issue of training standards for mediators.

The joint subcommittee consulted with the Virginia Mediation Network, organized two years ago as a vehicle for professionals to interact on mediation policies and procedures. The Network now includes 400 members, including attorneys, private practitioners, family therapists, court service workers, and social workers. The Network's resources, particularly its survey of mediation policies and procedures statewide and its national survey of mediation legislation, have assisted the joint subcommittee.

The joint subcommittee invited members of the judiciary to relate their experiences with child custody and support mediation and to comment on mediation issues. Appearing before the joint subcommittee were the Honorable Beverly Bowers of the Rockingham County Juvenile Court, the Honorable Jannene Shannon of the Charlottesville Juvenile Court, and the Honorable Marvin Garner of the Chesterfield Juvenile Court.

The joint subcommittee solicited the comments of members of the Bar. The joint subcommittee heard testimony from Frank Morrison, a Lynchburg attorney with a family law practice. Mr. Morrison serves as a substitute judge in the juvenile court and as commissioner in chancery in Lynchburg and served on the Bar Council's Legal Ethics Committee, on which he participated in the writing of ethical opinions on mediation by attorneys. Mr. Morrison is also trained as a mediator by the Academy of Family Mediators. The joint subcommittee also heard the comments of Mr. Richard Balnave, professor of law at the University of Virginia and director of the Virginia Dispute Resolution Center, supported by the Virginia Bar Association and the Virginia State Bar Joint Committee on Dispute Resolution. The Virginia State Bar and its Family Law Section and the Virginia Bar Association and its Domestic Relations Committee were kept apprised of the joint subcommittee's activities.

Two couples who mediated their child custody agreements when they divorced shared their experiences with and impressions of mediation with the joint subcommittee.

The joint subcommittee focused its attention in 1988 on the issues of confidentiality, mandating mediation, qualifications of mediators, and the court's authority to refer parties to mediation. It reviewed legislation passed by the General Assembly in 1988 which protects the confidentiality of materials and communications produced in mediation and provides civil immunity for mediators. Karen Donegan, executive director of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Center in Richmond, addressed the joint subcommittee on the background of the legislation and its provisions and on confidentiality issues generally.