Can I ask the court to grant mediation prior to them setting trial date?

[melissa1968]

State:  Iowa



I was served a petition to modify the already crappy visitation I have to even less, but am suspecting that the ex's mother-in-law is really behind all this, as my ex has dropped hints about being between a rock and a hard place, and other tidbits.

I will file my answer denying all the stuff, but want to know if I can ask the court to grant mediation before setting a trial date, or a settlement conference so that her and I and her attorney since, I have yet to retain one, financial reasons?

Is that possible, and if so, how might I word such a document?

Thank you,

Melissa

[Jade]

>State:  Iowa
>
>
>
>I was served a petition to modify the already crappy
>visitation I have to even less, but am suspecting that the
>ex's mother-in-law is really behind all this, as my ex has
>dropped hints about being between a rock and a hard place, and
>other tidbits.
>
>I will file my answer denying all the stuff, but want to know
>if I can ask the court to grant mediation before setting a
>trial date, or a settlement conference so that her and I and
>her attorney since, I have yet to retain one, financial
>reasons?
>
>Is that possible, and if so, how might I word such a
>document?
>
>Thank you,
>
>Melissa

Are you the non-custodial mother?  Or are you involved with the non-custodial father? Your name at the end is throwing me off.  

If you are the non-custodial mom, are you thinking that you will have to meet with your ex mother-in-law to mediate?  If so, your ex mil has no legal standing and no say in what goes on between you and your ex in court.  Of course, she can influence the ex, but in court, she has no say.  

Mediation will only work if the two parties are willing to compromise.  If not, then it is a waste of time and money (I believe that you do still have to pay for mediation).  

[melissa1968]

Sorry need to clarify.  It is my husband that is having this problem with his ex wife, not I.  

I think if the 2 of them set in a room whether my husband has an attorney or not by that time, trying to find one despreatly, that between him and her with no outside influence, and what he has in proof, they will have no ground to stand on.  And she will have to either drop it or they will have to work it out with out her mil influence.

Does that sound logical?

Thanks,  Melissa wife of husband having this trouble

[Jade]

>Sorry need to clarify.  It is my husband that is having this
>problem with his ex wife, not I.  
>
>I think if the 2 of them set in a room whether my husband has
>an attorney or not by that time, trying to find one
>despreatly, that between him and her with no outside
>influence, and what he has in proof, they will have no ground
>to stand on.  And she will have to either drop it or they will
>have to work it out with out her mil influence.
>
>Does that sound logical?
>
>Thanks,  Melissa wife of husband having this trouble

If his ex is letting her mother interfere to the point that she filed a motion to reduce his time, I don't think that mediation will help.  The mother needs to see that her mother's interference is making the situation worse and stand up to her.   Until that happens, mediation is a waste of time.  

Here is an example of why:

Let's assume that your dh and his ex go to mediation and reach an agreement.  Then his ex goes home and talks to her mother about it.  Her mother doesn't like it and speaks out against it.  His ex then decides she no longer wants that agreement.  Then you no longer have an agreement (well, in my state, you can enforce it, but that means going to court and spending lots of money on attorney's fees) since the courts haven't signed off on it yet (and this is rarely done the same day an agreement is reached via mediation), it isn't legally binding.  

Mediation is a good way to reach an agreement when both parties are able to cooperate and compromise.  

[mistoffolees]

It could easily work the other way. Ex is afraid to stand up to his mother, but if he reaches agreement in mediation, he waits until the court approves it and then shows his mother and says "I really couldn't help it. The court ruled, so I have to follow it".

I believe that mediation is always worth the effort and disagree with the notion that it requires two completely reasonable people who want to settle things. My stbx was opposed to mediation and insisted that she was going to take me for everything I was worth in court. We asked for mediation and she reluctantly agreed (only because she was told that if she didn't even try to mediate that the judge would likely rule against her).

Tomorrow is our third mediation session and we've already worked out most of the contentious issues. All that's really left is how to value the house and how to split stock options. While she fought a lot of stupid battles, a good mediator helped to convince her when she was digging her heels in on an issue that she'd lose in court. Even her attorney helped to bring her to heel.

A trial would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. Mediation will end up costing only a tiny fraction of that - even including the legal fees.

It's not easy, but it CAN work, even with a recalcitrant party. My case proves that.

[Jade]

>It could easily work the other way. Ex is afraid to stand up
>to his mother, but if he reaches agreement in mediation, he
>waits until the court approves it and then shows his mother
>and says "I really couldn't help it. The court ruled, so I
>have to follow it".
>
>I believe that mediation is always worth the effort and
>disagree with the notion that it requires two completely
>reasonable people who want to settle things. My stbx was
>opposed to mediation and insisted that she was going to take
>me for everything I was worth in court. We asked for mediation
>and she reluctantly agreed (only because she was told that if
>she didn't even try to mediate that the judge would likely
>rule against her).
>
>Tomorrow is our third mediation session and we've already
>worked out most of the contentious issues. All that's really
>left is how to value the house and how to split stock options.
>While she fought a lot of stupid battles, a good mediator
>helped to convince her when she was digging her heels in on an
>issue that she'd lose in court. Even her attorney helped to
>bring her to heel.
>
>A trial would have cost tens of thousands of dollars.
>Mediation will end up costing only a tiny fraction of that -
>even including the legal fees.
>
>It's not easy, but it CAN work, even with a recalcitrant
>party. My case proves that.

And my case proves otherwise.  While we didn't go to mediation (the norm in NJ), we did reach an agreement.  My ex backed out.  The judge didn't even attempt to get us to go to mediation because there was no way on earth I was ever going to trust that my ex would actually stick with an agreement that we came to in mediation.

In fact, we did reach an agreement when we were at court for a pendente lite motion, one that was signed that day with the understanding that a clean copy would be written up.  But until then the one that was with the court (with each page initialed by my ex and myself) was legally binding.

I even had my ex initial each page of the written up agreement even though it was not required by the judge.  I don't want my ex to claim that he didn't understand any part of the agreement.  

No, mediation doesn't always work.  And it requires both parties to be reasonable.  

Whether you want to admit it or not, your ex (or stbx, whichever the case is) is reasonable or you wouldn't have been able to reach an agreement.  

[mistoffolees]

>>
>>It's not easy, but it CAN work, even with a recalcitrant
>>party. My case proves that.
>
>And my case proves otherwise.  

Sorry, but no, it doesn't.

Your statement was that mediation never works unless both parties are willingly participating. My example disproves your statement.

If you want to modify your statement to say that it didn't work in your case (which isn't technically true since you didn't even use a real mediator), feel free. But all I need to show is that it SOMETIMES works to disprove your assertion that it NEVER works.

[Jade]

>
>>>
>>>It's not easy, but it CAN work, even with a recalcitrant
>>>party. My case proves that.
>>
>>And my case proves otherwise.  
>
>Sorry, but no, it doesn't.
>
>Your statement was that mediation never works unless both
>parties are willingly participating. My example disproves your
>statement.
>
>If you want to modify your statement to say that it didn't
>work in your case (which isn't technically true since you
>didn't even use a real mediator), feel free. But all I need to
>show is that it SOMETIMES works to disprove your assertion
>that it NEVER works.

Using your logic, your case didn't prove what you claimed.  You only proved that in YOUR case it worked.  

True, mediation does work in some instances.  Like when both parties, like in YOUR case, can be reasonable (unlike your assertion that your ex was not reasonable).

[mistoffolees]

>>
>>>>
>>>>It's not easy, but it CAN work, even with a recalcitrant
>>>>party. My case proves that.
>>>
>>>And my case proves otherwise.  
>>
>>Sorry, but no, it doesn't.
>>
>>Your statement was that mediation never works unless both
>>parties are willingly participating. My example disproves
>your
>>statement.
>>
>>If you want to modify your statement to say that it didn't
>>work in your case (which isn't technically true since you
>>didn't even use a real mediator), feel free. But all I need
>to
>>show is that it SOMETIMES works to disprove your assertion
>>that it NEVER works.
>
>Using your logic, your case didn't prove what you claimed.
>You only proved that in YOUR case it worked.  

I see you never took a logic course.

You claimed that mediation never works. It only takes one counterexample (which I provided) to disprove your assertion.

Since I never claimed that it ALWAYS works (I only claimed that it SOMETIMES works), it also only takes one case to prove my position. Which I provided.

>
>True, mediation does work in some instances.  Like when both
>parties, like in YOUR case, can be reasonable (unlike your
>assertion that your ex was not reasonable).
>

I see. So you're now claiming that you know that my ex was reasonable - and somehow know better than I do?

Sorry to disappoint you, but you don't have any knowledge of my case at all. My ex was completely unreasonable going into mediation (she demanded 95% of our joint assets and 75% of my income for the next 7 years PLUS child support), yet the mediation worked. It simply does not REQUIRE that the parties are reasonable before mediation begins. The whole purpose of mediation is to help people with very different views to reach an agreement.

You need to just admit that you were wrong (when you claimed that mediation never works) and move on.

[melissa1968]

Ok,  I guess I need to know if it is possible to ask the courts to grant his mediation or settlement conference.

Sorry, but the message and replies kinda went astray, no offense meant.

I realize that even after doing this, she may still be influenced by her mil, but would it not show the courts that my husband does not want to put his and her child through a court battle over bogus stuff, and that even if she goes back on the agreed stuff through this, that she in fact is the one that would not be able to cooperate for the child?

Kind of a good faith measure for my husband?

Thanks,  Melissa, wife of man going through this