How would you view this communication pattern?

[DecentDad]

Soc,

Recall in May/June biomom secured temporary orders on claiming that child was suicidal because of me.  At 30-day review hearing, minor's counsel and appointed psychologist (via minor's counsel) both asserted that child is not suicidal nor even depressed.  I got my time back, plus a little bit more.

Judge lectured biomom about constantly stirring the pot and warned that if he concludes that biomom is making up this hysteria, it will reflect negatively on the time that the child is with her.

We have orders to communicate by email.

We have orders stating that parents are to confer in good faith on all parenting matters.

In August, you advised that I cc minor's counsel on everything.

Since then, biomom has sent me approx 40 emails, requesting that we go to counseling and mediation to resolve conflicts.  She likewise cc's minor's counsel.

She'll typically state a general issue without specifying concerns or proposing solutions... e.g., "We need to change the parenting schedule, as the current schedule is not good for child.  Please join me in mediation."

In response, I've sent many emails inviting biomom to state any specific concerns and propose any specific solutions to her concerns, that there's no need to mediate anything if there is no specific issue.

We've been to five mediators in five years with no resolution on anything in mediation.  We've been to two counselors.  

Counseling sessions seem to be used by biomom to engage me emotionally without any paper trail or evidence of what she says.  

Mediation has been a way for her to tell me all of her demands (i.e., essentially remove me from child's life) and then later claim I was completely unreasonable on everything (as reason for mediation failing).

On a teleconference with child's psychologist a few months ago, biomom still opposed child sleeping in my home.  I invited biomom to specifically propose any solution that would resolve her concerns.  The psychologist encouraged her.  Biomom said that she'd get back to me (never did), and psychologist is aware of that.

I have no problem emailing my own concerns and proposing solutions in child's interest, though I rarely do it (only when I see a big issue).

Biomom's response is that email is not appropriate for such discussions and that she'll only discuss it in the presence of a third party (i.e., mediator) so we can do it "peacefully in a way that is most gentle for child."

1.  If we have orders to communicate by email, and if we have orders that we confer on parenting matters, is it unreasonable that I'd continue to ask biomom to do just that?

2.  At some point, does biomom's refusal to communicate directly on issues reflect poorly on her?  Or is it a set up that one parent will inevitably get sole custody, and that'll likely go to the one with the most timeshare?

3.  Any other thoughts?  I've been doing my best to parallel parent given the reality of the situation, but biomom repeatedly states she has concerns (which in the past have even included the type of night-light I use in child's room), refuses to disclose concerns without a third party, and questions why I won't join her with a third party.

Thanks,
DD

[socrateaser]

>1.  If we have orders to communicate by email, and if we have
>orders that we confer on parenting matters, is it unreasonable
>that I'd continue to ask biomom to do just that?

No.

>
>2.  At some point, does biomom's refusal to communicate
>directly on issues reflect poorly on her?  Or is it a set up
>that one parent will inevitably get sole custody, and that'll
>likely go to the one with the most timeshare?

It doesn't reflect poorly unless you can prove it's occuring to the court and that the other parent is at fault.

As for your second question, nothing's "set up." You're being paranoid.

>
>3.  Any other thoughts?  

Yes, tell mom that you'll agree to mediation on condition that the negotiations are recorded and admissible in court as evidence for any relevant issue. Tell her that your reasoning is that prior mediation has been non-productive and that you believe that if both parties know that their negotiations are potentially admissible, that they will be more likely to cooperate at the risk of demonstrating uncooperative behavior that the judge will not be able to miss.

This will instantly stop any possible manipulation. Then if she tries to suggest you're making this requirement as a means of avoiding mediation, you can just say, "Hey, I'm willing to negotiate in the open and on the record. What could show more good faith than that?"

Game over.

[DecentDad]

>Yes, tell mom that you'll agree to mediation on condition that
>the negotiations are recorded and admissible in court as
>evidence for any relevant issue. Tell her that your reasoning
>is that prior mediation has been non-productive and that you
>believe that if both parties know that their negotiations are
>potentially admissible, that they will be more likely to
>cooperate at the risk of demonstrating uncooperative behavior
>that the judge will not be able to miss.

Thanks.

Just in case she wants to proceed...

Does this agreement need to be a stipulated order for settlement discussions to be admissible?

Does mediator need to sign something, indicating agreement?

Is it reasonable to restrict mediator selection to the courthouse's no-cost mediation service?

Who pays for the certified transcript of the recording?

DD

[socrateaser]

>Does this agreement need to be a stipulated order for
>settlement discussions to be admissible?

No, unless your existing orders require confidential mediation.

>
>Does mediator need to sign something, indicating agreement?

The mediation agreement should state that all parties agree that the proceedings are not confidential and evidence obtained pursuant to the mediation shall be admissible in court.

>
>Is it reasonable to restrict mediator selection to the
>courthouse's no-cost mediation service?

No. Those mediations will be confidential by state law.

>Who pays for the certified transcript of the recording?

You can just set up a tape recorder. If the other party wants a recording, she can make her own. Then if you need the evidence later, you can have a court reporter transcribe the tape.

If you want a real court reporter, then you'll have to negotiate the distribution of costs, which of course will be very spendy.

[DecentDad]

Thanks.

>>Is it reasonable to restrict mediator selection to the
>>courthouse's no-cost mediation service?
>
>No. Those mediations will be confidential by state law.

I think you read between lines I didn't intend... let me ask differently...

So that I incur no cost of this mediation and ensure the mediator selected has a basic standard of neutral professionalism; is it reasonable that I'd suggest a restriction to use the courthouse mediation service at the courthouse that has jurisdiction OR the courthouse near our homes?  Both have several mediators, and neither has a service fee.

I'd rather not open up a can of worms and agree to mediation with an unprofessional or inexperienced mediator that biomom has been buttering up on her own.

[socrateaser]

>Thanks.
>
>>>Is it reasonable to restrict mediator selection to the
>>>courthouse's no-cost mediation service?
>>
>>No. Those mediations will be confidential by state law.
>
>I think you read between lines I didn't intend... let me ask
>differently...
>
>So that I incur no cost of this mediation and ensure the
>mediator selected has a basic standard of neutral
>professionalism; is it reasonable that I'd suggest a
>restriction to use the courthouse mediation service at the
>courthouse that has jurisdiction OR the courthouse near our
>homes?  Both have several mediators, and neither has a service
>fee.
>
>I'd rather not open up a can of worms and agree to mediation
>with an unprofessional or inexperienced mediator that biomom
>has been buttering up on her own.

I wasn't aware that this service existed. The courts have mediators for court-ordered mediation, and those mediations are mandatorily confidential by state law (at least I think they are -- actually, I haven't looked -- maybe they're not).

But, if you can hire them privately, and they will allow confidentiality to be waived, then go for it.

[DecentDad]

.