Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Posts Tagged ‘court rules’

What “Mandatory” Really Means in Foreclosure Mediation

Susan M. Yates, July 13th, 2015

There is a lot to be learned by reading RSI’s evaluation of the foreclosure mediation programs that are supported by a grant from the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. The evaluation, which was conducted and written by RSI’s amazing Director of Research, Jen Shack, is comprehensive, well-reasoned and insightful.

One thing that struck me is how the various programs use the term “mandatory” to describe mediation services. When I think of mandatory participation in mediation, I think of the typical family mediation program for contested child-related issues in which parents must attempt mediation (barring certain disqualifying factors) or the court will not move forward with their case. In foreclosure mediation, some programs call themselves mandatory, but court rules impose no negative consequences if the homeowners do not try mediation. (more…)

Canada’s First Online Tribunal Getting Ready to Launch

Shawn Davis, April 10th, 2015

In 2012, British Columbia passed the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, which established a new aspect of BC’s justice system that will provide online dispute resolution services for strata (condominium) and small claims cases. The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) will be Canada’s first online tribunal and is expected to launch later this year. The CRT will take disputants through a series of online tools designed to help resolve the dispute as effectively and efficiently as possible. For example, disputants first will be led through resources designed to provide information and diagnose the problem. The next phase involves part-to-party negotiation through the online system. For parties that are unable to negotiate a settlement on their own, the next phase offers case management and facilitated dispute resolution. Parties still unable to come to an agreement may move to adjudication, where they will be able to ask the tribunal to issue a decision. Because the CRT’s dispute resolution services will be available online, users will be able to access them from home or from a mobile device, 24 hours a day. To further facilitate access to justice, the CRT will allow “helpers” to aid disputants who do not read English or need assistance with technology. The language access already provided by the court will be made available, and the CRT will also employee multilingual staff, when possible, and make telephone interpretation available.

Last month, Bill 19, the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, was introduced in the legislature. The amended act would require most strata and many small claims cases to be diverted to the CRT, expanding its authority. (more…)

When It Comes to Mediation, Less Regulation May Be More

Jennifer Shack, June 16th, 2014

You’re a judge charged with overseeing a voluntary civil case mediation program in your court. Because you’ve been monitoring your program, you know that, though 75% of cases going through mediation are reaching agreement, the program isn’t doing much to reduce judges’ workloads because mediation generally occurs very late in the case.  What do you do?

You have at least three options: (more…)

In re Lee Part 3: Implications for Stakeholders

Mary Novak, November 19th, 2013

In this final installment of our series on the Texas family mediation case In re Lee, we’ll examine the implications of the holding upon parents, judges and mediators. To recap, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in In re Le that a trial court judge must enter a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) two parents had made arranging custody for their child, even though the judge believed the MSA was not in the child’s best interests. So what does the ruling mean for the different stakeholders in family mediation? (more…)

In re Lee Part 2: Parental Autonomy vs. Judicial Oversight

Mary Novak, October 21st, 2013

For the second part of this series on the family court mediation case In re Lee, I’ll examine the laws at issue in the case, then discuss the legal reasoning and policy that the Texas Supreme Court majority and dissent each followed in making their decisions. The crucial statute in the case was Texas Family Code Chapter 153, which relates to custody. Two sections of that code came into conflict in the case.

Best Interest of Child (§153.002) says the best interest of the child should always be the court’s primary consideration in custody issues.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Procedures (§153.0071) includes rules for mediation. Several parts of this section were relevant to Lee’s case. (more…)