Maryland Mediation Blog

When you have a dispute or issue(s) to resolve with another party agreeing to mediate may be easier than appearing in the same city at the same time. Despite the fact that two parties are willing to sit in the same room with each other, discuss issues and negotiate a resolution, the parties may be located in different cities, and either unwilling or unable to travel.

From my Maryland mediation practice, a case comes to mind. For both parties, husband and wife, this was a second marriage. He was ten years older than she. The parties worked, married and lived in the State of Maryland. They both had grown children from previous marriages. Prior to marrying, the husband spoke about retiring to Florida. At the time, the wife did not feel strongly one way or the other about it.

After five years of marriage, the husband stated he wanted to retire and move to Florida. The wife, who had a good job, as well as friends and family in Maryland, did not want to move. The couple agreed the husband would move to Florida, find a place to live, and husband and wife would visit back and forth.

Over time the visits became less frequent. Five years passed in which the couple did not see one another. Still on speaking terms, the couple decided to end the marriage. However, while amicable, they needed a little help to resolve the issue of property settlement.

The husband agreed to participate in mediation on condition he did not have to travel to Maryland. Telephone mediation allowed the parties to negotiate. Telephone mediation works well when each party is able to clearly articulate on the telephone their position in the dispute. Telephone mediation can be done from your home or office. When you do not have to drive to the mediation, sit down, talk, and drive home, or back to work, you save alot of time. Telephone mediation is best suited for single issue disputes.

Once mediation is in progress, disputes may be resolved by phone within 24 hours. How quickly your dispute is resolved depends however on how quickly you, the other party, and the mediator are available by phone.

In the event one party will not agree to participate in mediation, it is possible for you to consult with a mediator alone, by phone to discuss ways to have your needs met.

When a couple with children separates or divorces the children are the unwittting victims. The end of the relationship as a couple puts tremendous stress on children as well as on parents. While the relationship of a couple may be terminating, the couples' jobs as parents is not. Parental "job performance" has lasting effects on children.

In my Maryland mediation practice I assist couples to negotiate the issue of child custody. As a mediator, I am a neutral third party. I do not decide who gets the children. Parents of young children may have an especially agonizing decision.The couple desperately want to be free of each other, yet they each want to tuck young children in bed every night. Sometimes a couple divides custody of children as the couple divided their personal property. Where children are older, parents may agree to a trial period of custody at each parent's home, after which the children are allowed to decide where they want to live.

If two parents can sit in the same room and speak rationally to each other about child custody, they have an advantage. They may not end up in the court system. If, however, the couple needs a little help working out the issue of child custody, mediation is an ideal process to assist two parents willing to work with one another on the issue of child custody.

Couples who cannot sit together, or work with a mediator to discuss the issue of child custody may end up resorting to a stressful and expensive alternative; that is, litigation. When a couple engages in litigation, one or both may come away with much less than he or she imagined possible.

If you believe your argument for obtaining custody of your child is the best, or strongest, and you are represented by an attorney, consider the fact that your partner or spouse may also believe his or her argument is the strongest, and may also be represented by an attorney. It is risky for two parents to go into court unable to decide the issue of child custody. That couple is essentially asking a total stranger to decide the fate of the parents and the children.

There is no need for parents to place themselves in such a vulnerable position. Mediation is a safe, confidential alternative to litigation. What goes on in mediation is not a matter of public record. During mediation, no one enters the room except the couple and the mediator. If the couple agree to bring attorneys, accountants, or other advisers, they too may accompany the couple.

Should you choose to litigate the issue of child custody in court, you should know it is not confidential. The court room is open to the public. Anyone may enter and listen. Your litigation is a matter of public record.

Few things are more frustrating than a dispute hanging over your head. However, if you choose to mediate, you may schedule mediation much sooner than a court date. With the assistance of a mediator, the issue of child custody can be resolved before you could even obtain a date for a hearing in court.

My mediation practice is located in Maryland. Here, as is everywhere else, a house of God is not always a house of peace. Accommodating many perspectives, or the various points of view found in a group is always a challenge.

In my Maryland mediation practice, among other disputes, I assist religious groups, for example, clergy, teachers, choirs, clubs, administrators, and congregants who are in conflict. I assist them to identify issues relevant to their disputes, negotiate, and structure workable solutions which address the issues.

Quite some time ago a group of similar minded folks broke away from their traditional houses of worship and founded their own worship group. While the new group remained relatively small, that is, only the founding members, there were not many disagreements about the organizational structure and ritual practices. However, over time the group grew in number. While the membership shared core beliefs, they differed regarding ritual practices.

The larger group or congregation contained members with different needs, ideas, and opinions regarding rituals and worship. The congregation had formal methods to constructively address congregational issues about which congregants were in conflict. However, the formal methods left some congregants with hurt feelings. In frustration, some people spoke of breaking off from the larger group. Though they had always been active in the congregation they were no longer comfortable with the larger congregation.

Mediation was the option chosen by the congregation to assist with the differences of opinion and communication difficulties. Mediation provided a safe, environment for all who chose to participate to voice their opinions, be treated with dignity and respect, and to negotiate the options available to the group.