Intake meetings are held separately with each party and are confidential.
The meeting's purpose is to ensure mediation is appropriate and to discuss family issues out of court.
Mediation can be joint (both parties on the same screen) or in separate breakout rooms, moving from one room to the other.
All discussions during mediation are confidential.
None of the participants can disclose to the judge what was said, offered, or commented during the mediation.
The goal is to resolve family law issues privately.
Agreement and Report
If an agreement is reached during caucus mediation, the mediator drafts a non-binding report.
The report is sent to both parties and their lawyers, if applicable.
Parties are advised to seek legal advice on the report.
Once both parties sign the report, it can be turned into a court order.
If no agreement is reached, a one-page summary is sent, stating that mediation occurred, listing the issues discussed, and noting the absence of an agreement.
Exceptions to Confidentiality
There are exceptions where confidentiality cannot be maintained:
If there is a risk of harm to a child.
If there is an imminent risk of harm or immediate danger to someone.
The judge has discretion to subpoena the mediator's notes in very rare circumstances, such as criminal or child protection proceedings.
Mediator's Role
The mediator is a neutral and impartial party, not taking sides or interested in the outcome.
The mediator facilitates discussion but does not provide legal advice.
Mediation is voluntary and can be withdrawn from at any time.
Session Protocol
Confirm the participant is alone in the room and not recording the session.
Verification of ID required.
Background Information
Relationship Background:
The parties were in an on-and-off romantic relationship for about 10 years.
The daughter was planned, with the participant undergoing fertility treatments.
A domestic violence incident occurred just before the participant discovered she was pregnant, leading to separate counseling.
The participant experienced prenatal depression following her father's death.
A comprehensive parenting plan drafted by the participant was ignored by the other party.
The parties separated when the daughter was two months old but continued to see each other casually.
Co-Parenting History:
The participant had primary care of the daughter for the first six months while exclusively breastfeeding.
A 50/50 schedule was attempted, but the participant still handled daytime caregiving.
In 2021, the participant started working Uber Eats due to financial constraints.
Conflicts arose when the participant requested full parenting time, leading to the paternal grandmother assisting with childcare.
Child support payments ceased in early 2022, exacerbating financial stress.
Mental Health Crisis:
The participant experienced a mental health breakdown and suicidal ideation around May 2022 due to financial strain and burnout.
The daughter started full-time daycare in June 2022 after the participant became eligible for a subsidy.
Parenting Time Adjustments:
The participant asked the other party to take the daughter overnight while she stabilized, but she still had to handle daycare pickups and caregiving.
Medication and meditation helped stabilize the participant's mental health.
Financial and Business Ventures:
The participant managed her father's estate, including renovating properties and handling finances.
She used funds from selling inherited properties to start her own business.
An accident while working Uber temporarily halted income.
Relationship with Extended Family:
The other party started leaving their daughter with his mother every weekend.
The participant developed a bond with the other party's niece and nephew, who eventually came to live with her.
The other party pressured the children to babysit and tried to limit their contact with the participant.
Concerns for Daughter's Well-being:
The daughter exhibited potty training regression and selective mutism.
The other party initially denied any changes in their environment but later admitted his girlfriend had moved in.
The participant requested counseling for their daughter, but the other party refused.
Pediatrician and counselor assessments suggested environmental factors were contributing to the daughter's issues.
Legal Application
The participant sought sole decision-making authority due to concerns about the daughter's well-being and the other party's refusal to attend counseling.
The daughter underwent assessments, all of which indicated environmental factors were affecting her.
Current Mental Health Status
The participant reports improved mental health with medication and meditation.
She maintains regular check-ups to prioritize her mental health for her daughter.
Domestic Violence Incident
The participant described a one-time incident of domestic violence where the other party hit and choked her while in a drunken state.
She did not call the police but discussed the incident in counseling.
The counselor assessed the other party as being at high risk of developing a drinking problem.
Concerns About The Other Party's Behavior
The other party's behavior has been irrational, particularly towards extended family.
He has been volatile towards his mother, threatening to disown her if she continues to support the participant.
Safety Measures
The participant requested limited direct contact with the other party and uses a co-parenting app for communication.
Child exchanges occur at school or through the paternal grandmother's house.
Opinion of The Other Party as a parent
Despite the issues, the participant thinks the other party is a great and involved dad.
The participant doesn't feel fear for her own safety.
The participant’s main concern is the well-being of her daughter.
The participant suspects the behaviour to due to a power stuggle.