family mediation quarterly

Vol. 11 No. 3 Summer 2012

M C F M

FAMILY MEDIATION QUARTERLYM C F M

FAMILY MEDIATION QUARTERLY

The Massachusetts Council On Family Mediation is a nonprofit corporation established in 1982by family mediators interested in sharing knowledge and setting guidelines for mediation. MCFMis the oldest professional organization in Massachusetts devoted exclusively to family mediation.

PRESIDENT’S PAGE

Family Mediation Quarterly

[email protected]

Dear Mediators:

I am so honored that you, my peers, have elected me President and hope that, overthe next two years, I prove worthy of the choice.

For those of you who don’t know me, I have been practicing law for 21 years andthe last 16 have been in the family law area. Mediation represents about 40% ofmy practice and the rest is traditional representation and Collaborative Law. I stillgo to court and, for the most part, actually enjoy it. I also do a lot of prenuptialwork and, because the subject is particularly compelling to me, I have researchedand written about it extensively.

Additionally, I have worked as a neutral for many years in different capacities: asa Board of Bar Overseers Hearing Panel member, as a Massachusetts BarAssociation Fee Arbitration Panel member, and a conciliator with the MiddlesexCounty Bar Association.

Mediation compliments my practice and has made my professional life much moresatisfying. The epiphany is familiar to many of you, I’m sure.

The last seven years have been particularly rewarding for me – that’s when I cameon MCFM’s Board as the Clerk. During this time, I have come to know many ofyou quite well and hope to meet more of you in the near future.

The year ahead should be a particularly exciting one for MCFM: Our 30th birthdayis coming up and we are celebrating it on September 13 at the Endicott House inDedham. Tickets will be $50.00 for members.

We are considering hiring a strategic planning advisor who may assist us withdeveloping a mission statement and/or helping us identify some long and short-term organizational goals. An added bonus for MCFM – the services will be probono.

John Fiske and Steve Nisenbaum are already hard at work on their successful andengaging Professional Development workshops. So watch your inboxes for furtherinformation on that. These meetings have been at capacity for the last few yearsand we hope to see even more of you there in the next year.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions, comments, orconcerns. I look forward to a promising year.

Yours,

CONTENTS

31 MCFM News35 Announcements

42 Join Us43 Directorate

Summer 2012 • Vol. 11 No. 3

1 PREGLIMONYBy Shari Motro

5 JOHN AND MARY: Sharing Parenting After DivorceBy John M. Haynes

12 JOHN MICHAEL HAYNES: An Obituary By Thelma Fisher

13 A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: An Email Exchange

16 AN IMPROMPTU POEM By John Fiske

17 WHEN A SPOUSE DIES DURING THE NISI PERIODBy Shuneet Thomson

22 NATIONAL MEDIATORS SOCIETYBy Dave Coverly

23 AN ADR CONSUMERS’ BILL OF RIGHTSBy William M. Levine & E. Chouteau Levine

24 THE BOTT CASE: Mediation, Public Perception& The Unauthorized Practice of LawBy Jonathan E. Fields

26 WHAT’S NEWS? National & International Family NewsChronologically Compiled & Edited By Les Wallerstein

29 MCFM MEDIATOR PROFILE: Helena S. Friedman

COPYRIGHT NOTICEMCFM grants permission to reproduce and disseminate

articles & graphics provided that MCFM and the authors are credited, each author consents

and distribution is not-for-profit.MCFM © 2012

44 Editor’s Notice

1


PREGLIMONYBy Shari Motro

We have alimony. We have palimony. Why don’t we have preglimony? Why don’t werecognize that when a woman gets pregnant with a man to whom she is not married,the pregnancy should be both parties’ responsibility?

I’m not talking about what happens if the pregnancy ultimately produces a child. I’mtalking about the pregnancy itself. Under current law, if the woman terminates, theman owes her nothing. If she takes the pregnancy to term, then only after he’s deemedthe father will the man be required to reimburse her for prenatal and birthing expenses— and then only because it is considered part of his child support obligations. He’llhave no responsibility to share in other costs of pregnancy deemed “personal” to thewoman — things like maternity clothes, birthing classes, or lost wages. Some menalready treat the costs of pregnancy as a shared responsibility; others do not, and thelaw gives them a free pass. In short, until and unless paternity has been established, apregnant woman and the man with whom she conceives are legal strangers.

Preglimony is my dream for a different world, a world that recognizes that unmarriedlovers who conceive are not complete strangers. They’re not spouses either. They’resomething in between. Ideally the law should recognize them as such by replacing thecurrent lovers-as-strangers paradigm with a relational default. This new default wouldimpose certain baseline responsibilities on unmarried lovers who conceive regardlessof the outcome of the pregnancy, including “preglimony” — a legal frameworkdefining a man’s duty to help support his pregnant lover.

Developing and implementing this new framework will take time and further study,but there is something simpler we can do more quickly. As a first step towardsrecognizing and integrating the relational paradigm we can reward and encouragepreglimony through the tax code. Current law is silent on the proper tax treatment ofpregnancy-related payments, but under prevailing principles they are likely to betreated as gifts and thus be neither deductible to the payor nor includible by therecipient. In other words, preglimony is a tax nothing. By contrast, alimony paymentsbetween former spouses are deductible to the payor and includible to the recipient.This means that former spouses whose incomes diverge can shift high-bracket incometo a lower bracket, producing a tax benefit.

Preglimony is more like alimony than a transfer between strangers, and it should betreated accordingly. Not only does extending tax benefits to pregnancy-relatedtransfers make sense under current principles, doing so will also reward and encouragemen who are prepared to support their pregnant lovers. Preglimony is a new word; itis not a new practice. It’s time the law noticed.

2


To visualize the proposal, consider a man whose taxable income is $100,000 and whotransfers $20,000 to his pregnant lover, whose taxable income is $60,000. Assume also,for simplicity, a rate schedule with only two brackets. Taxable income that does notexceed $80,000 is taxed at a ten percent rate, while taxable income above $80,000 istaxed at a thirty-five percent rate.

In general, transfers can be treated in one of four ways. They might:

(a) be neither includible by the recipient nor deductible to the payor (as when anindividual gives a gift to another individual);

(b) result in taxable income to the recipient and a deduction to the payor (as when anemployer compensates an employee or when a former spouse pays alimony);

(c) result in taxable income to the recipient without a corresponding deductionallowance to the payor (as when an individual compensates a housekeeper, gardener, orother purveyor of personal services); or

(d) produce no taxable income to the recipient and be deductible to the payor (as whenan individual makes a charitable contribution).

Continued on next page

3


Currently, preglimony is likely to be nondeductible to the payor, and excludible to therecipient as in scenario (a). My proposal would bring the treatment of preglimony inline with the current treatment of alimony, producing an income-shifting benefit.

4


The most frequent objection I hear to this idea is that it will give men a say overabortion. A woman’s right to choose is sometimes eclipsed by an abusive partner whopressures her into terminating or continuing a pregnancy against her will, andpreglimony could exacerbate this dynamic. But the existence of bullies shouldn’tdictate the rules that govern all of society. In the name of protecting the mostvulnerable, it sets the bar too low for the mainstream, casting lovers as strangers andpregnancy as only a woman’s problem.

It’s also possible that preglimony could deter a different form of abuse by making menwho pressure their partners into unprotected sex, on the assumption that the woman willterminate an unwanted pregnancy, financially liable for the potential result.

At the end of the day, preglimony stands to benefit men too, especially those who wantto help but are turned away. How many well-intentioned men have been dismissed with“I don’t want your money” or “You’ve done enough damage; now stay away from mydaughter”? Preglimony names and in that way honors the man’s role in caring for hispregnant lover. A man and a woman who conceive are intimately connected. They arenot spouses, and they may not even continue to be lovers, but they are not strangerseither.

We’ve known this for a long time. Preglimony provides an opportunity for the law tocatch up.

Shari Motro is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond. This articleis based on her Stanford Law Review article [Preglimony,63 STAN. L. REV. 647 (2011)], available online athttp://legalworkshop.org/?s=shari+motro&x=0&y=0. Shari can be contacted

at [email protected]

“When it’s a question of money, everybody is of the same religion.”

Voltaire

5


John and Mary had lived together duringthe late sixties, and, when she becamepregnant, they married. Neither had aregular job, and both spent equal timecaring for their preschool-age son, Mark.

The marriage was not going well, partlybecause of economic stress and partlybecause of other relationship issues, whenJohn’s parents called from Seattle withnews or a job as all expediter on thedocks. John and Mary talked it over anddecided to make the move from LongIsland to Seattle. John thought it was theopportunity he had been looking for, andMary saw it as a chance to change themarriage in a new setting.

John’s job on the docks meant that heworked a fifteen- to eighteen- hour shiftfor four days in a row. Then he had threedays off. Therefore, he maintained hisclose relationship with Mark andcontinued to share equally in hisnurturing. He was enjoying his new life.

Mary, however, was not. She was isolatedfrom her support network, she had nointerests outside the home, and she feltincreasingly oppressed in therelationship. After a year in theNorthwest, she decided to return to theEast. She told John that she would like tovisit her folks on Long Island and takeMark with her. At the end of the firstweek in New York, she called John andtold him she was not returning to Seattleand that she was keeping Mark with her.John was devastated. When he could not

persuade her to return, he began divorceproceedings in Washington. Mary filedsimilar papers in New York, and each,waited for something to happen. Johncalled regularly and spoke to Mark on thetelephone.

The first legal action took place in NewYork, and John flew east to consult withan attorney. The case was postponed, and,at the end of one week in New York, hesaw Mark each day and spent lots of timewith him. On the final day of his visit, hewent to say good-bye to his son. Marywas working as a waitress, and there wasa mix-up with the babysitter, who thoughtthat John was slaying in New York a fewdays longer.

When John arrived at Mary’s house to sayfarewell to Mark, he discovered his sonasleep with no babysitter in sight. Hewrapped Mark in a blanket, took him tothe car, drove to the airport, and flew backto Seattle. Once home, he left Mark withhis parents while he worked and settledback into a routine of nurturing father.

When Mary discovered what hadhappened, she was devastated but just ashelpless as John had been to do anythingabout it. Three months later, the Seattlecourt set a date for a hearing, and Maryflew to Seattle to appear. While there, shevisited Mark at John’s parents’ home andtook him for a walk to the park. Theywalked through the park to her car, gotinto the car, drove to the airport, and flewback to New York.

JOHN AND MARYSharing Parenting After Divorce

By John M. Haynes

6


The Seattle court held that part of the casewould be held in Kings County,Washington, and part in New York. TheNew York court held that part of the casewould be heard in Nassau County, NewYork, and part in Washington. Eachparent felt stymied in the legal process,and each worried that he or she wouldlose in the other’s court.

THE MEDIATION PROCESS

Establishing Mediation as the Arenafor Settlement Both parents, who werein New York for the court hearing,telephoned me together and gave me thebackground information. I listened totheir story and noted that eachcorroborated the other’s information.They asked for an appointment, and l toldthem, “I will be able to see you twice fora total of four hours. The first meetingwill be tomorrow, Friday afternoon, andthen again on Monday afternoon. We willreach an agreement by then, or anagreement will not be possible.”

I gave this schedule because I sensed thatthey had engaged in this conflict for morethan a year, and I wanted them tounderstand that mediation was an arena inwhich to settle the case, not continuefighting. I find that conflict-habituatedcouples need a tight time frame and thatsuch a schedule emphasizes thatmediation is a different arena from anythey might have used in the past. John andMary agreed to the schedule.

Eliminating Worst Fears I then toldthem, “I want you to each to think aboutsomething before you come to see me:

What would be the worst possibleoutcome in working with me? Don’tanswer the question now, just think aboutit until tomorrow, and when we meet Iwill ask you again.” We set the time, andthey arrived at the office the next dayfifteen minutes early.

In asking the question about the worstpossible outcome, I wanted to find outwhat it was they feared the most. Myexperience in cases such as this is thatcouples are driven to mediation by fear:fear of the alternatives and fear that theworst possible outcome will materializein alternative arenas (Haynes, 1984). Ibelieve that if these fears can surface andbe negotiated early in the process, thenthe parties can concentrate not ondefending against their fears but on,solving the immediate problem.

Confusion Between Parenting andSpousal Roles I opened the first sessionby collecting the essential data andconfirming the information they hadprovided on the telephone. As the sessioncontinued, it became clear that the couplehad not separated their parenting andspousal roles. John complained that Marydid not take good care of Mark; she didnot mother him enough, and he recountedthe story about finding the childunattended at the house while Mary was

Each parent felt stymiedin the legal process, and

each worried that he orshe would lose in the

other’s court.


7


at work. As I listened, I mentallysubstituted the name Mark for the nameJohn and realized that John was reallycomplaining about the lack of motheringthat he received from Mary during themarriage.

Mary complained about John’soverpowering character. She said thatduring the marriage John felt that anyproblem could be solved by talking aboutit, “as long as he does all the ‘talking.”Mary complained that Mark wasbeginning to grow more like his father,dominating women and thinking that, aslong as he did the talking, everything

would be all right. As I listened, I realizedthat Mary was complaining about John’sspousal behavior, not his parentingbehavior.

Given that fact, I decided to see whethereach could acknowledge the other’sparenting ability. No matter what I did, Iwas unable to get either to do so. Theywere stuck in the spousal roles and

marital fights, and any movement on theparenting issue would require theirbecoming unstuck.

Surfacing the WATNAS I then turnedto the question I had raised on thetelephone and asked each of them toanswer the question, “What would be theworst possible outcome in working withme?” John spoke first: “I think the worstoutcome is that I would lose Mark. He ismy only child, and I don’t know what Iwould do if I lost him. The thought isunbearable.”

I responded, “that would be an awful’outcome, and one you have everyright to fear. Mary, how aboutyou?”

Mary replied. “I’ve thought aboutthis a lot and I think the worstpossible outcome would be that Ilost Mark.”

Again, I responded, “That wouldindeed be an, awful outcome andone you have every right to fear.Since you both fear the sameoutcome, could we agree at theoutset that one outcome that is notacceptable is that either of you

lose Mark? John, could you agree thatMary must not lose Mark as a result ofthese negotiations? Mary, could you agreethat John must not lose Mark as result ofthese negotiations?”

They both replied positively, and we hada major agreement. This was their third:They had agreed to mediate, they hadagreed to use me as the mediator, and now

They asked for anappointment, and l told them,“I will be able to see you twicefor a total of four hours. Thefirst meeting will be tomorrow,Friday afternoon, and thenagain on Monday afternoon.We will reach an agreement bythen, or an agreement will notbe possible.

8


they had agreed that ‘neither of themcould or should Jose Mark. I feltcomfortable returning to the issue of theconfused parenting and spousal roles.Although the atmosphere was lighter inthe room as a result of the agreement,which released them both, from theirworst fear, neither parent was ready toacknowledge the other’s parenting ability.Each seemed to sense that doing so wouldmean losing the argument about Mark.

I pointed out that we were no longernegotiating about whether one or theother parent might lose Mark but abouthow to share the time with him, since werecognized that he would have to livewith one parent during the school year sothat he could attend school on a regularbasis. However, with time running put forthe first session, I was unable to gain anysignificant movement from either of themtoward acknowledging the other’sparenting. I then turned to the subject ofthe forthcoming weekend. They told methat Mark was to spend Saturday with hisfather and Sunday with his mother.

Using Dissonance Theory. As I broughtthe session to a close, I gave them each anew task, I said, “I would like each of youto think about ways we could movetoward an acceptable agreement. I wouldlike you both to think about thefollowing: John, what would you wantfrom Mary in order to agree to herposition that Mark should live primarilywith her? Mary, what would you wantfrom John in order to agree with hisposition that Mark should live primarilywith him? And, while each of you isthinking about this question, I want you

also to think about the question, Whatcould you offer the other in order to gethim or her to agree to your position?Don’t answer the questions now. Thinkabout them, and we will talk about themduring our meeting on Monday.”

The purpose of asking these twoquestions was to get them to “ walk a milein the other’s moccasins.” In order to getbeyond the confusion between theirspousal and parenting roles, each wouldhave to stop ascribing motives to theother and understand what the other reallywanted. At the moment, the motives thateach ascribed to the other were spousalmotives—that is, “she didn’t take care ofme” and “he overpowered me”— andeach believed that the other wanted tomaintain that position. However, asolution would emerge when each couldsee that what they both wanted was ameaningful, nurturing parent role withMark. They would also need tounderstand the other’s position moreclearly in order to reach an agreement onMark’s future parenting.

Thus, if I could gel them to think aboutwhat the other wanted and needed as aparent, what they saw would probably notbe as threatening as what they saw in eachother as a spouse. The purpose of the firstquestion—“What would you want fromthe other in order to agree to his or herposition?”—was designed to make themthink carefully about what each wantedand what the other was capable of giving.To answer this question they would haveto think about the issue from the other’spoint of view. If they accomplished thistask, they would have to change their own


9


positions because they would have toadmit to themselves the true, rather thanthe implied, motives of the other, and theywould have to understand the other’spoint of view.

Understanding the other’s point of view isthe first step in moving toward anagreement. It involves using dissonancetheory to create change. Dissonancetheory holds that it is not possible to holdone position and argue another; the twoare in dissonance, and people will modifyone or the other position in order to lessenthe dissonance (Cohen, 1984). Modifyingthe original positions makes a negotiatedagreement possible.

However, not all people will try to answerthe first question seriously. Thus, I ask thesecond question, which emphasizes one’sself-interest and which is a variation onthe first question. The question, “Whatcan you offer John to get him to agree toyour position?” requires Mary to thinkabout what John wants and accomplishesthe same purpose as the first question. Toknow what John wants, she mustunderstand his position, and, as eachspouse comes to understand the other’sposition, the implied motive disappears.While many clients simply do not dealwith the first question (possibly because itasks them to think about losing), almostall clients answer the second question(probably because it asks them to thinkabout winning). In either case, once eachparent begins to think about what theother parent wants, dissonance theorybegins to apply.

Acknowledging Parenting Abilities.When they returned on Monday, eachlooked tired and drawn. I began thesession by asking what each had doneover the weekend. John began: “Mark’and I went to Jones Beach. It wassecluded—not many people there—andwe flew a kite, built sand castles, andbought hot dogs. There were just the twoof us, and we had a great time together,”As John talked about ‘his day with Mark.I encouraged him to keep talking andprovide every detail of the day. As he didthis, a picture emerged of a lot of one-on-one lime between father and son. At thesame time, the emotional climate of theroom warmed up.

When John had finished, I turned to Maryand asked her about the events of Sunday.“Oh, we had a great time with a bunch ofmy friends,” she replied. “We went toSunken Meadow State Park and had apicnic. There were about a dozen of us,and we spent the day playing volleyballand throwing frisbees. Then we had agreat sing-song; my friend Sally broughther guitar. We barbecued hamburgers andhot dogs, and Mark had a great time withall my friends.” As Mary talked about herday with Mark, I encouraged her to keeptalking and provide every detail of theday. As she did, a picture emerged of agregarious, social day between motherand son. The emotional climate of theroom grew even warmer.

When both had finished, leaned forwardand said, “You know, Mark is a lucky guy.He gets the best of both worlds from eachof you. From you, John, he gets one-on-one attention, lots of special time, and

10



gets to do those things best done by justthe two of you. And, when he is with you,Mary, he gets the opportunity to socializeand be gregarious, lots of special lime,and gets to do things bestdone in a crowd. So, just asyoutwo are different as spouses,so Mark gets different thingsfrom each of you as parents.Each of the things he getsfrom you is important, and heneeds both if he is to grow up to be theyoung man you both want him to be. Inthat way he is very lucky.” I then had achoice of trying to weave this same-different idea in a way that would getthem to acknowledge each other’sparenting abilities or to proceed to myquestions of the previous week. I felt thatI had acknowledged each of themsufficiently so that they both could benon-defensive about their parenting roles,so it did not matter at this point if they didnot acknowledge each other. I turned tothe assignment questions.

“Tell me what your thinking has beenabout the two questions I asked you onFriday. I assume you have both thoughtabout them.” Mary replied first, “Oh, yes,I thought about them a lot. It was verydifficult to keep my mind focused on thequestions. My mind kept wandering offthem, but I did stick with them.” “You,too?” said John. “I had a terrible time. Infact, I was awake most of last nightthinking about them. But, I finally cameup with an answer, and I’d like to share itwith you now.” I replied, “Okay, John,why don’t you begin?”“Well,” John said, “I thought about it a

lot.” He then continued at great speed, asif he were afraid that the words would getaway from us all. “If you will let me takeMark back to Seattle until the first of

January, I’ll bring him back to New York,and he can live with you during the schoolyear and then spend the summer andChristmas holidays with me each year.”

We were meeting at the end of May, andMark was due to enter nursery school inthe fall. John’s proposal meant that Markwould miss the first semester of nurseryschool. I looked at Mary, who stared backat me blankly. I stood and wrote theproposal on the flipchart. “Is that correct”I asked John. “Yes,” he replied. “What doyou think about that,Mary?”

Mary studied the words and slowlynodded assent. “So you could agree WithJohn’s proposal?” I said. “Yes,” saidMary.

With the basic agreement in place, Ipointed out that Mary could not let Johntake Mark back to Washington without awritten agreement. I offered to draft amemorandum for them that afternoon sothey could each take a copy to theirrespective attorneys for review anddrafting of the legal agreement. They thenturned to each other and began talking

“I want you to each to thinkabout something before you

come to see me: What would bethe worst possible outcome in

working with me?”

11


about support and some other financialarrangements and quickly came to a fairsupport arrangement. We agreed to add aclause requiring mediation and arbitrationof any violation of the agreement andbrought the session to ‘a dose. Theparents have called me twice since theagreement to report that it is workingwell. I have warned them both that theagreement may require rethinking asMark gets older and his peer groupsbecome more important to him.

Conclusion In this case study, I havedemonstrated the usefulness ofidentifying the couple’s WATNA (worstalternative to a negotiated agreement) andthen eliminating it from the talks to freeup creative energy for solutions. I helpedthe couple to separate their parenting andspousal roles in the belief that it isacceptable to dislike someone as all ex-spouse but not as the mother or father ofone’s son. I helped them to accomplishthis through the use of dissonance theoryand by helping them to understand whateach really wanted. Finally, I validatedtheir parenting abilities and pointed outthe unique attributes that each gave toMark. This combination of strategieshelped the couple to get over thekidnappings and begin again to share theparenting of their only child.

John M. Haynes was a pioneerin the field of family mediation.He was President of HaynesMediation Training Institute,

Founding President of the Academy ofFamily Mediators, and served as aconsultant to court systems throughoutthe world. He appeared on numerousnational television shows and authoredseveral books, including TheFundamentals of Family Mediation. Thisarticle first appeared in MediationQuarterly, Journal of the Academy ofFamily Mediators, Number 21, Fall,1988, Published by Jossey-Bass, Inc., adivision of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Reprinted with permission.

ReferencesCohen, A. Attitude Change and SocialInfluence. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Haynes, J. M. “Mediated Negotiations:The Function of the Intake.” In J.A.Lemmon (ed.), Procedures for Guidingthe Divorce Mediation Process.Mediation Quarterly, No. 6. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

“Grief is the price we pay for love.”Queen Elizabeth II

12


JOHN MICHAEL HAYNES: October 28 1932 - December 22 1999Obituary by Thelma Fisher

The Guardian, Wednesday 8 March 2000

Until 1978, there was no publicly available way in the United Kingdom of resolvingdivorce issues other than by separate legal representation. For a third person to help thedivorcing partners work out, co-operatively, the consequences of their parting wasrevolutionary. The Finer Committee in 1973 recommended such a scheme, and thevoluntary sector began to provide it in the late 1970s. John Haynes, who has died aged67, was the inspirational mediator who taught the new profession how to do it. A skilfulteacher, he was passionate that mediation should be a professional activity in its ownright, not subsumed into legal practice, social work or counselling.

The formation of the UK College of Family Mediators in 1995 reflects thatdetermination. Haynes played a major, though indirect, part in achieving the inclusion ofmediation into the family law act 1996, which led to its availability through legal aid.

Born in Isleworth, Middlesex, he was educated at Ealing’s Drayton Manor grammarschool. After Royal Air Force national service he moved to the United States in 1957 andfrom 1964-72 was assistant to the president of the International Union of Electrical,Radio and Machine Workers. Because of his skills in conflict management he was invitedto teach at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, from 1972-85, gaining hisdoctorate at the Union Institute, Ohio.

He then moved into family mediation, and became the founding president of theAcademy of Family Mediators. In 1984, he gave the inaugural lecture in London of theNational Family Conciliation Council (later to become National Family Mediation), andbegan global travels which led to the training of 20,000 mediators — usually lawyers andsocial science professionals. He worked in North and South America, Europe,Australasia, South Africa, and the Soviet Union. He also continued to practise.

His books formed the core of this new discipline and included Divorce Mediation: APractical Guide For Therapists And Counsellors (1981) and, with his wife Gretchen,Mediating Divorce: A Casebook Of Strategies For Successful Family Negotiations. Hewas a founding member of the World Mediation Forum, whose conference in Septemberhe had been due to chair.

Haynes’s readiness to express his Quaker faith in finding goodness in people could besurprising. “If you can’t see good in your client,” he observed, “then dig for it”. Hepossessed humility, clarity, a zest for life, a mischievous sense of humour and generosityin sharing his ideas.

He leaves Gretchen and his two daughters. A scholarship in his name has been establishedat the Union Institute.

13


A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE: An Email Exchange

Editor’s Note: Attorney Fran Giordano framed the questions below in an email to JohnFiske, which I circulated in the hope of gathering the views of other mediators... Feelfree to share your thoughts in an email to [email protected].

Frances M. Giordano <[email protected]> I have been retained bythe wife in a divorce case. She and the husband had previously been in mediation (andmay return after some discovery is conducted). At my client’s request, I asked themediator to send me copies of any financial information provided to her, and draftagreements. The mediator’s response was that the information is privileged, and shewould not provide it to me. Doesn’t my client have a right to those documents and thisinformation, and isn’t it her right to give me the authority to get it from the mediator?

John Fiske <[email protected]> My answer is that of course the mediatorshould give you whatever information was produced during the mediation, includingcommunications. You are the lawyer for one of the clients in the mediation. The publicpolicy which requires the documents and information in mediation to remain privilegedis the same public policy creating the lawyer-client privilege. So that’s the first reasonwhy I think the mediator should provide you whatever you feel you need to representyour client. You’ll be interested: it’s not the first time I’ve heard mediators expressconcern about providing documents or information to the lawyer for a party inmediation, and I’ve always wondered about this reluctance.

The second reason is that your client should already have the information anddocuments from his or her mediator, and can do with it whatever he or she wants. Forthis reason I as mediator have provided confidential information to the mother of oneof my clients, at the client’s request, even though there is no mother-child privilege.

Les Wallerstein <[email protected]> At first blush, this seems more aquestion of contract than privilege. Was there is a mediation contract, and if so... whatdid it say on the subject of the mediator sharing documents and information with eitheror both clients’ counsel?

Even if there was no mediation contract... or the mediation contract was silent on thissubject, copies of all relevant documents should have been routinely shared with bothmediation clients. Furthermore, if the wife doesn’t have copies of the relevantdocuments, the mediator has an obvious obligation to provide duplicate copies to her.Transparent disclosure is at the heart of mediation.

On the other hand, even if a mediation contract specifically authorizes the mediator toshare relevant documents and information with each party’s counsel, that authorization

14


is revocable... potentially affording the husband the right to prior notice that his wifewants copies of his financial records provided to her lawyer.

Thus, without knowing more facts I am of two minds: (i) a mediator may have anobligation to provide the husband with prior notice of disclosure to wife’s counsel evenif there is specific authorization in the mediation contract, and (ii) a mediator has aclear obligation to provide the husband with prior notice of disclosure to wife’s counselif there is no mediation contract... or the contract is silent on this subject.

In the midst of this elegant ambiguity I believe that a signed contract that clearlypermits the mediator to talk with and share documents with each client’s counsel is thebest practice... and had such a contract existed in Fran’s case, the mediator could nothave hidden behind the cloak of privilege.

Lynn K. Cooper <[email protected]> Wouldn’t the answer be affectedby what iswritten in the mediation contract?”What I tend to do is to require both clientsto sign off on returning any documents to either one of them. A letter or fax withsignatures would be enough.

Barbara Kellman <[email protected]> 1. My first thought is the mediatoris correct about the draft agreements, absent some specific agreement of the parties.

2. The financials, it would seem to me, depend upon what they are and what the sourceof them is. Are they, for example, tax returns which would be available to both partiesanyway or are they materials specifically prepared for the mediation? Tax returns (orsimilarly mutually, readily available documents) could potentially be shared but notdocuments prepared for mediation.

3. Does the other party agree to sharing with the lawyer? In that case, it would seemboth lawyers should have equal access.

Marion Lee Wasserman <[email protected]> Setting aside the issue of thedraft agreement, since the financial documents have already been shared by the partiesin a fully transparent process, and since the parties were always able (indeed,encouraged) to consult with independent counsel, what is the legal theory by which themediator now turns down a request from one party’s attorney for copies of thedocuments? If one of the parties was better than the other at maintaining a set of thedocuments shared during the mediation process, should the less organized party bepenalized for not having a full set of documents to provide to his or her lawyer? Also,is the answer different for financial documents (bank statements, etc.) provided by theclients, as compared to documents prepared by the clients (for example, a child supportworksheet)? Does the answer depend on whether the mediation process has been


15


terminated or is still ongoing? Should the documents be provided directly to the parties(both parties) rather than to either attorney?

Lynda J. Robbins <[email protected]> I always make sure thatboth clients have copies of all documents provided at the mediation, by the clientsthemselves or prepared by the mediator—such as the guidelines worksheet. If one partyhas lost documents, I would replace them, although my clients know that most of whatI keep is in electronic format so, that might be what they get from me. I would notprovide anything directly to an attorney without the client requesting it and the otherclient being informed and, possibly, consenting.

Kathleen Townsend <kathleen@divmedgroup> My policy is to have nothing in myfile (except for my notes) that hasn’t been copied and given to each client as documentsare brought in or worked on in mediation sessions. I have a copier in my mediationroom and make copies right then and there if it’s not many pages. When there are a lotof pages, I ask that the doc be left. We copy it within 24 hours for my file, return theoriginal to the client and a copy to the other client. Usually, I do this as a courtesy anddo not charge for it.

When a lawyer makes a request or a client asks me to send something to an attorney,my response is that due to confidentiality, I don’t do that, but I will send copies out tothe client who can then get them to the attorney if they choose. Then I immediatelymake more copies and send (email, fax) them out to each client with a quick cover letterthat merely says: Dear John and Mary, Per Mary’s request, enclosed please findduplicate copies of your …… I usually do this as a courtesy and do not charge for it.

A couple of tips – encouraging the clients to keep a mediation notebook or giving thema sturdy folder in which to keep their papers and to transport them to sessions helpssomewhat with their organization. Also telling clients as you deal with docs that therewill be nothing in your file that they don’t also have may cut down on requests for yourfile. Also, I tell clients that if they are planning on consulting with an attorney, theattorney is going to be looking for all the financial docs, so they should make sure theykeep them safe.

We all know that folks in crisis can’t always keep it all together, so there is some cleanup that I just expect to do as part of the job.

Jon Fields <[email protected]> I’m not sure why the mediator can’t provideall her materials to the requesting party (not the lawyer) provided both parties consent.Even with the consent of just one party, it seems that GL c 233 s 23c only governsdisclosure in “a judicial proceeding.” That means to me that it can’t go into evidence,and it would not be a proper inquiry of discovery. If both (or even one) client(s) say,

16


thanks for your help Jon, I want the file, I’d give it to them. Drafts, work product,everything. How or whether they could be used in court is a separate matter.

Frances M. Giordano <[email protected]> Thank you all so much foryour input. I am waiting to hear from my client whether the parties signed a mediationagreement/contract. My client had previously made the request directly to the mediatorfor her to provide information to me, and the opposing party was informed andconsented. I look forward to continued responses and appreciate your help.

AN IMPROMPTU POEM

To satisfy mediating clientsMay take more luck

than science;If there’s a rule,Always stay cool,

And don’t treat them with defiance.

Extemporaneously ComposedBy John A Fiske on 6/15/2012

17


“In the unlikely event that one of you diesduring the ‘waiting period’ — after thecourt hearing, but before your divorce isfinal — what should happen with theestate of the person who died?” Thedivorcing parties look perplexed.“Technically you are still married for 120days after the court hearing, your divorceis not yet final, do you wish to retain thespousal right to inherit each other, orwould you like to waive it?”

We ask this question of our divorcingclients. They pause, seem surprised – thethought had not occurred to them. Theylook at one another and make a decisionbased on what kind of an estate they thinkthey have, or on their feelings about eachother or their children or their feelingsabout their own estates. Neither expectsto actually face this situation.

Nor do we expect one of them to diewithin a few months. Someone has said“the only sure things in life are death andtaxes,” yet we rise every morningbelieving we will live to see the light ofyet another day and so will all otherpeople we know. The possibility that oneof our clients will die during the short nisiperiod seems merely hypothetical. I havemediated over 650 divorce cases and hadnot come across this situation.

So I was shocked when a 59-year oldformer client sent me an email telling meher older retired husband had passedaway suddenly in his apartment. Sheasked me what should she do. Her

message expressed feelings of grief andguilt and fear and shame, exacerbated bythe fact that she was being pushed out bythe kids of his first marriage….Ultimately she was asking for help, howdoes she get a death certificate, whomshould she turn to, what does this eventmean for her?

It seemed to me a person cannot divorce adead spouse and this must impact herdivorce, which was not yet absolute. Ithought it meant she was now a widow,and could not become a divorcee. I alsoknew there could be Social Securityconsequences for her. Having neverencountered this situation, I was merelyguessing.

I gave her the names of three attorneycolleagues in her area and the name ofDennis O’Leary who had just spokenwith our mediator support group aboutSocial Security and divorce. I then sentout an email asking a bunch of attorneyfriends about the implications of such asituation. As a non-attorney mediator Isought to be educated about it.

• Someone was concerned that I wasbeing asked for legal advice and mighttender legal advice, to which Bill Driscollsent a thoughtful comment on thequestion “what level of advice can betransferred by a [non-attorney]mediator?” This topic being tangential tothe subject matter of this writing, I do notquote his comments here, although thequestion he raised is interesting – non-

WHEN A SPOUSE DIES DURING THE NISI PERIODShuneet Thomson

18


attorney mediators often “transfer”information and maybe advice (?) byquoting attorneys. The distinctionbetween straight advice and “transferredadvice” is interesting and new to me.

• Conveying information is typically whatnon-attorney mediators do. It is not thesame as giving “advice.”

• Lynda Robbins added an importantpoint: “The probate rules have recentlychanged and I honestly don’t know howthat might affect any of the divorceprocedure. Hence the need to havesomeone who knows current law.”

• Another colleague stated that as a“neutral mediator” she would not becomfortable answering the client’squestions. I wasn’t sure how to respond tothis concern. Wouldn’t death make myrole as mediator moot? Am I to actimpartially between a living and a deadformer client? What risk to impartialitydoes this situation pose? Can I be unfairor not-impartial to the dead husband?Maybe the concern was that in thissituation I was by definition no longeracting as a mediator, so what was myrole? I do not struggle too much in thesesituations, I see myself as being helpfuland supportive as any person might betowards someone in need.

• A surprising number of attorneysindicated they had never come across aparty’s death during nisi, as we can see forexample in this response: “I have had noactual experience with this havinghappened — I don’t think. Most divorceagreements have language designed to

deal with the situation where one of theparties dies before the divorce is final.That language says that notwithstandingthe death, the divorcing and nowsurviving party will be treated as thoughthe divorce were final. A specific answerto the question would require resort totheir specific separation agreement in order to determine whether that languagewas there or not. If not, I kind of think theeffect of the death is to negate the divorce,though I am not sure.”

• Most responses emphasized the newwidow’s need for urgent action in court,to get the divorce vacated ahead of thedate of the Divorce Absolute. I sent heranother email (here is an example of“transferred advice”): “…I hope you havecontacted an attorney. I am told you needto act fast to vacate the divorce before thewaiting period is over. If it passes it willbe tougher to do. I am told the town canprovide a death certificate for a fee ofabout $10.” Turns out she had hired an“attorney friend of a friend” (not one ofmy referrals, no surprise there) and hefiled to vacate her divorce about 20 daysbefore the date of the Divorce Absolute,so she beat the deadline.

I also got two detailed and informativeresponses – one from attorney MikeTremblay and the other about SocialSecurity from Dennis O’Leary, CPA,CFP. I quote them here in their entiretyfor readers’ enlightenment.

Mike Tremblay’s Response This is a vexatious issue that arisesfrequently, and not an easy one to answer.First of all, there is the issue of whether


19


the Judgment Nisi becomes Absolute. Butsecond, and more importantly, is whetherthe Separation Agreement continues to bea binding agreement on the parties evenafter death. The first question is answeredapparently plainly:

“First, the death of the wife abated thedivorce proceedings. Diggs v. Diggs, 291Mass. 399, 401- 402 (1935). Pine v. Pine,323 Mass. 524, 525 (1948). Ross v. Ross,385 Mass. 30, 35 (1982).”

So it appears she can prevent the entry ofthe Judgment of Divorce Absolute bysimply filing a “Suggestion of Death onthe Record” accompanied by his deathcertificate. The Divorce action is thenstopped dead in its tracks. She can get adeath certificate by paying $10 at the Cityor Town clerk, as they are public records.However, time is of the essence here, ifshe lets the 90 days run and the judgmentabsolute enters, there will be more work toget that vacated.

Next, can she vacate the Judgment ofDivorce Nisi? It would appear so, butthere has been contentious litigation onthis issue, as it is frequently opposed byfamily members. When you think itthrough, it makes sense. The kids nowstand to inherit her half of everything,maybe the family house too, so they havea big incentive to see the divorce becomefinal. In every case I read, the court seemsto find a way to deny vacating thejudgment nisi — i.e., there was an appeal,there was a statement of objections, thepost-judgment pleadings did not stay therunning of the nisi period, the judgeintended the judgment nisi to enter nunc

pro tunc to an earlier date, etc. However, Ihave seen and heard other lawyers filethese motions and they can be allowedwithout fanfare if there is no opposition.So, once again, she should hire a lawyerand move fast.

Third, there is the issue of the separationagreement. There is strong precedent that,if the agreement was comprehensive as toall marital issues, they intended it to bepermanent. A case from 1988 sums it up:

“The issue before us, whether theseparation agreement was contingentupon the entry of a judgment of divorcenisi or whether it had full force and effectfrom the date it was executed, is governedby the intent of the parties. See Moore v.Moore, 389 Mass. 21, 23-25 (1983). Wedetermine that intent by an analysis of theentire agreement and its context, and weconclude that the parties intended theagreement to have full force and effect asof at least the date of the order approvingit, which happened in this case also to bethe date the parties signed it. Theagreement was a comprehensive and finalsettlement of the financial relationship ofthe parties, not only covering mattersaffecting their immediate situations, butalso dividing their assets and resolvingtheir inheritance rights and theirresponsibilities for each other’sindebtedness. Such complete andpermanent separation agreements, freelyentered into by parties contemplating adivorce, are favored by the public policyof Massachusetts and generally areenforceable, absent “countervailingequities.” Pavluvcik v. Sullivan, 22 Mass.App. Ct. 581, 584 (1986).

20



So even if she can stop the entry ofjudgment absolute and vacate thejudgment nisi, she may still be bound bythe agreement, and the Husband’s estatecan enforce it as a contract. And, ofcourse, the husband’s estate will be drivenby the children who stand to inherit hishalf of everything.

Not a nice predicament to be in. A lot ofher outcome appears to depend on howmuch money the other side is willing tospend to fight her. She could very well sailthrough it smoothly, but will never knowunless she tries.

On the other hand, her Social Securitybenefits do not appear to be affected. Solong as they were married 10 years, shegets full spousal and survivor benefits, if Iremember correctly from last month’spresentation.

Dennis O’Leary’s ResponseFACTS: Couple is married for 8 yearsand in the process of obtaining a divorce.Husband is age 65 and receiving a pensionplus social security. Wife is age 59.Before the divorce is finalized thehusband dies. Is the wife entitled to aspousal or survivor benefit?

ANSWER: The good news from afinancial standpoint is the husband diedbefore the divorce was finalized, whichmakes her a widow. If the divorce hadbeen finalized, the wife would not havebeen entitled to any spousal benefits fromsocial security. She would be entitled onlyto her own benefits (unless she remarriedand her new husband retires, which

creates other options). You must bemarried at least 10 years to qualify fordivorced-spouse social security benefits,which she was not.

What she does qualify for as a widow issurvivor benefit. The wife can begincollecting her survivor benefit at age 60(unless disabled or if she has children age16 or under). If the wife files at age 60, herbenefit would be 71.5% of what thehusband was collecting at the time ofdeath. If the wife waits to her fullretirement age of 66, she would be entitledto the husband’s full benefit (adjusted forinflation). Note: the survivor benefit ishigher than the (divorced) spousal benefittherefore you would always select thesurvivor over spousal benefit. Of course,the wife is entitled to her own benefit aswell. This benefit can be structured withher survivor benefit to maximize benefitsto suit her needs.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: Theanalysis seems simple enough but youwould need to know a few more facts tomake an informed decision.

• What type of pension does the husbandhave? If it is a government pension, thewife might need to consider pension offsetissues.

• What type of social security benefits isthe wife entitled to? You want tostructure payments to maximize theoverall benefits based on all factors. Youcan’t determine this unless you run thenumbers on different scenarios.

• What are the tax implications of eachdecision? If the wife draws her survivorbenefit at age 60 and is working andpaying into social security, her benefitwill be reduced by $1 for every $2 sheearns over $14,640 in earned income.Once the wife reaches full retirement age,this penalty terminates.

• What are the financial and healthconsiderations to be factored into thedecision? Social security is similar to alifetime annuity with inflationadjustments (in most cases there are noinflation adjustments for pensions orannuities). Therefore, you should try tomaximize the social security benefit ifyou plan on living a long life.

In most cases, when you schedule anappointment with the social securityoffice, they are helpful. However, theirfocus is on maximizing your benefit at thetime you visit, not analyzing differentscenarios and recommending the bestoption for the long run. You should havea plan in advance of setting up anappointment (try to setup at least 3months in advance of filing date).

Shuneet Thomson, Ph.D., is thefounder and president ofInterpeople Inc. since 1996. Shehas offices in Littleton and

Arlington and does mostly divorce andworkplace mediation. Contact:[email protected]; 978-486-3338.

Michael J. Tremblay, Esq. is anattorney mediator. His practice islocated in Marlborough, wherehe concentrates in divorce

mediation and bankruptcy. Contact:[email protected]; 508-485-4500.

Dennis O’Leary, C.P.A., C.F.P.is an associate with JimMcCusker Associates inChelmsford and Boston. He

specializes in maximizing clients’ socialsecurity benefits and consults on financialplanning, portfolio management and taxpreparation. Contact info: [email protected]; 781-413-6235.

21


“Death is a very dull, dreary affair, and my advice to you is to have nothing whatever to do with it.”

William Somerset Maugham

22


23


AN ADR CONSUMERS’ BILL OF RIGHTSBy William M. Levine, Esq., &

Hon. E. Chouteau Levine (Ret.)

Since mid-January of this year, we have operated a stand-alone practice of mediation,arbitration and associated neutral services only, as Levine Dispute Resolution CenterLLC. In trying to crystallize what we are about and what we can offer for anincreasingly web-affected marketplace, we have tried to convey our respect andenthusiasm for facilitated negotiations, and out-of-court resolution of differences, morebroadly. In that effort, we have come to realize that we can summarize the processes thatwe offer as effective, comprehensive and humane; and to help us do so in a few words,we have developed:

THE LDRC CONSUMERS’ BILL OF RIGHTSYOU have the right to have an attorney (with you or outside sessions).

YOU have the right to receive accurate financial disclosure (comprehensive ortargeted).

YOU have the right to file a complaint for divorce or modification, and not be judgednegatively for it (for financial protection, to incent disclosure, to begin “waiting”periods, to “stop the clock” on general term alimony and to preserve retroactivity).

YOU have the right to dignified, honest and fair treatment (from us and from yournegotiating partner).

YOU have the right to leave (you are here voluntarily, always).

YOU have the right to our impartiality (we can’t say that we are unaffected by ourinteractions with you, but we work every day, in every session, to maintain ourobjectivity and balance).

YOU have the right to the best information that we give you and your negotiatingpartner (our knowledge and our judgment are two important things that you are buyingfrom us).

YOU have the right to transparent billing (we will account for all of our activities in atimely way).

YOU have the right to privacy (in our locations, in our communications and withcontractual confidentiality).

YOU have the right to our very best efforts (always – that’s why we are here).

Please tell us what you would add, delete or change in this list.

The authors are the principals of Levine Dispute Resolution CenterLLC, of Westwood and Northampton, MA. Bill may be reached [email protected]; and Chouteau may bereached at [email protected].

24


This quarter, rather than a case review, Iwant to focus on the recent SupremeJudicial Court opinion, Matter of Bott,462 Mass. 430 (2012) which has attractedwide attention in the local mediationcommunity. Because of its potentialramifications, many of us have beenanticipating this case with great interestand even a certain anxiety. The goodnews: while the Court could have usedthis case to find that mediation is thepractice of law, it did not do so. Ofcourse, such a decision would have been aserious blow to non-lawyer mediators,many of whom are members of MCFM.But what did the Court hold? And whatcan we learn from the case?

The facts are simple. Mr. Bott, anattorney, agreed to resign from thepractice of law in the context of a legaldisciplinary proceeding and the Board ofBar Overseers accepted his resignation asa disciplinary sanction. Following hisresignation, Mr. Bott filed a petition to theSingle Justice requesting permission toserve as a mediator. The Single Justicesent it to the SJC for its decision.

The narrow issue before the SJC waswhether Mr. Bott, an attorney whoseresignation was accepted as a disciplinarysanction, was permitted to performservices as a mediator. The Court held,essentially, that Mr. Bott may be barredfrom acting as a mediator “when to do sowould be perceived by the public as an

extension of the attorney’s practice oflaw.” To the SJC, public perception (howthe public views the work sought to beperformed by the sanctioned lawyer) iscritical.

Thus, the Court went on: “it is relevantwhether a disbarred or suspended lawyerdraws on his or her legal education andexperience and exercises judgment inapplying legal principles to address theindividual needs of the client.” Further,whether a sanctioned attorney engaged inthe practice of law depends on whetherthe person’s post-sanction work wasperformed by the lawyer prior to thesanction, whether the work is customarilyperformed by lawyers, and whether thelawyer seeks to perform work in the samecommunity or for other lawyers.

Bott’s focus is narrow. It doesn’t meanthat a non-attorney mediator is engaged inthe unauthorized practice of law. It’s aboutwhether a sanctioned attorney can engagein mediation; when that attorney performscertain professional activities, there is aheightened risk that the public mayperceive such activity as the practice oflaw.

In fact, Bott points out that some servicesperformed by non-lawyers become legalactivity when performed by a sanctionedlawyer. For example, in one case, asanctioned attorney was barred fromworking as a title abstractor even though

THE BOTT CASE: Mediation, Public Perception& The Unauthorized Practice of Law

By Jonathan E. Fields


25


title abstractors are not necessarilylawyers. In another example, thedisciplinary rules themselves explicitlyprovide that sanctioned attorneys cannotwork as paralegals – although paralegalsare clearly not engaged in the practice oflaw.

What does the decision teach tomediators generally? The public’sperception about whether an individual ispracticing law is at the heart of the matter– and the perception applies, withoutdistinction, to attorneys and non-attorneys. This triggers for me questionsthat mediators have been wrestling withfor a long time. If a mediator has theclients sign an agreement that explicitlysets forth that he/she is not acting as theirattorney, is that a sufficient defense to a“practicing law” claim? It still matterswhat the mediator does after they sign, itseems. For example, the mediatorcouldn’t go represent one of them in courton the same matter. But what about

drafting financial statements or preparingseparation agreements? Might that alterthe client’s perception about what role themediator is actually performing? Andwhat if, despite the mediator’srecommendation, the parties do not haveattorneys review the draft? Clearly, areview by other attorneys would, amongother things, emphasize that the mediatoris not acting as an attorney. Or: is thesigned acknowledgement that most of ususe enough?

Unfortunately, I have questions but noclear answers. I know that mediators willbe dissecting this case further in the yearahead and I hope to learn some of yourthoughts on this case.

Jonathan E. Fields, Esq. is apartner at Fields and Dennis,LLP in Wellesley. Jon can becontacted at 781-489-6776, or at

[email protected]

“Intellectuals solve problems; geniuses prevent them.”

Albert Einstein

26



WHAT’S NEWS?National & International Family News

Chronologically Compiled & Edited by Les Wallerstein

Cohabiting in America Cohabitationin the United States has increased bymore than 1,500 percent in the past halfcentury. In 1960, about 450,000unmarried couples lived together. Nowthe number is more than 7.5 million.The majority of young adults in their20s will live with a romantic partner atleast once, and more than half of allmarriages will be preceded bycohabitation. (Meg Jay, New YorkTimes, 4/15/2012)

Economists Document Acute WealthConcentration in AmericaEmmanuel Saez and Thomas Pikettyhave spent the last decade tracking theincomes of the poor, the middle classand the rich. Their work shows that thetop earners in the United States havetaken a bigger and bigger share ofoverall income over the last threedecades, with inequality nearly as acuteas it was before the Great Depression.Research at the Internal RevenueService allowed them to stretch the dataall the way back to 1913. They figuredout the benchmark for various incomelevels — the top 10 percent, top 1percent and top 0.1 percent of earners,for instance — and calculated whatshare of income each group took eachyear. From 2000 to 2007, incomes forthe bottom 90 percent of earners roseonly about 4 percent, once adjusted forinflation. For the top 0.1 percent,incomes climbed about 94 percent.

Data that the two economists releasedin March showed that the top 1 percentof earners got nearly every dollar of theincome gains eked out in the first fullyear of the recovery. In 2010, the top 10percent of earners took about half ofoverall income. (Annie Lowrey, NewYork Times, 4/17/2012)

U.N. Report Forecasts 10.1 BillionPeople by Century’s End Thepopulation of the world, long expectedto stabilize just above 9 billion in themiddle of the century, will instead keepgrowing and may hit 10.1 billion by theyear 2100. The new report comes justahead of a demographic milestone,with the world population expected topass 7 billion in late October, only adozen years after it surpassed 6 billion.The United States is growing fasterthan many rich countries, largelybecause of high immigration andhigher fertility among Hispanicimmigrants. The new report projectsthat the United States population willrise from today’s 311 million to 478million by 2100. (Justin Gillis & CeliaW. Dugger, New York Times, 5/3/2012)

U.S. Students Hobbled by theSoaring Cost of College With morethan $1 trillion in student loansoutstanding in this country, cripplingdebt is no longer confined to dropoutsfrom for-profit colleges or graduatestudents who owe on many years of

27


education. Ninety-four percent ofstudents who earn a bachelor’s degreeborrow to pay for higher education —up from 45 percent in 1993. For allborrowers, the average debt in 2011was $23,300, with 10 percent owingmore than $54,000 and 3 percent morethan $100,000. Nationally, state andlocal spending per college student,adjusted for inflation, reached a 25-year low this year, jeopardizing thelong-held conviction that state-subsidized higher education is anaffordable steppingstone for the lowerand middle classes. All the while, thecost of tuition and fees has continued toincrease faster than the rate of inflation,faster even than medical spending. Ifthe trends continue through 2016, theaverage cost of a public college willhave more than doubled in just 15years, according to the Department ofEducation. Much like the mortgagebrokers who promised pain-freeborrowing to homeowners just a fewyears back, many colleges don’t offerwarnings about student debt in theglossy brochures and pitch lettersmailed to prospective students.(Andrew Martin & Andrew W. Lehren,New York Times, 5/12/2012)

Whites Account for Under Half ofBirths in U.S. According to CensusBureau, non-Hispanic whitesaccounted for 49.6 percent of all birthsin the 12-month period that ended lastJuly. Minorities — Hispanics, blacks,Asians and those of mixed race —reached 50.4 percent, representing amajority for the first time in the

country’s history. Whites still representthe single largest share of all births, at49.6 percent, and are an overwhelmingmajority in the population as a whole,at 63.4 percent. The result is striking:Minorities accounted for 92 percent ofthe nation’s population growth in thedecade that ended in 2010. (SabrinaTavernise, New York Times,5/17/2012)

Defense of Marriage Act HeldUnconstitutional Where a lawsuit hasbeen filed challenging section 3 of theDefense of Marriage Act (DOMA),which denies federal economic andother benefits to same-sex coupleslawfully married in Massachusetts andto surviving spouses from couples thusmarried, the challenged portions of thestatute must be declaredunconstitutional, as Congress’s denialof federal benefits to same-sex coupleslawfully married in Massachusetts hasnot been adequately supported by anypermissible federal interest. “... ManyAmericans believe that marriage is theunion of a man and a woman, and mostAmericans live in states where that isthe law today. One virtue of federalismis that it permits this diversity ofgovernance based on local choice, butthis applies as well to the states thathave chosen to legalize same-sexmarriage. Under current SupremeCourt authority, Congress’ denial offederal benefits to same-sex coupleslawfully married in Massachusetts hasnot been adequately supported by anypermissible federal interest.”Commonwealth of Massachusetts v.

28


United States Department of Health andHuman Services, et al. (Lawyers WeeklyNo. 01-140-12) (Boudin, J.) (1st Circuit)(Tom Egan, Massachusetts LawyersWeekly, 6/1/2012).

Supreme Court Asked to Rule onMarriage Act The Obama administrationis asking the Supreme Court to settle thelegal fight over a law that denies federalbenefits to married gay couples. TheJustice Department asked the court in itsnext term to hear an appeal of lower courtrulings striking down a part of theDefense of Marriage Act. The earliest thejustices might decide to hear the case is inlate September. Arguments would

probably take place over the winter, witha decision returned by late June. Theadministration said it agreed with thelower court rulings, but wants promptSupreme Court review because PresidentObama has instructed federal agencies tocontinue to enforce the law’s ban onfederal benefits to married gay couplesuntil there is a final ruling. (AssociatedPress, New York Times, 7/4/2012)

Les Wallerstein is a familymediator and collaborativelawyer in Lexington. He can becontacted at (781) 862-1099, or

at [email protected]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature.

And that is because, in the last analysis,

we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery

that we are trying to solve.”

Max Planck

29


MCFM MEMBER PROFILEHELENA S. FRIEDMAN

Address: 1380 Main Street, Suite 202, Springfield, MA 01103

Website / e-mail: www.Helenafriedman.com / [email protected]

Professional background: Bachelors of Arts in Sociology 1979; J.D. 1985; MassBar 1985; CT Bar 1993.

Mediating since/ mediation history: Mytraining in mediation has been as follows:

Dispute Resolution Services, Basic Mediation(32 hours); The mediation and TrainingCollaborative (Divorce Mediation (32 hours);CT Divorce Law Training with BarbaraAarons; and several collaborative lawtrainings.

Describe your mediation practice: I primarilydo divorce mediation and other related family law

mediations.

Describe your mediation workspace: I have a comfortable conference room in mylaw office.

What made you decide to be a mediator: I became a lawyer because I wanted tohelp people. By nature, I prefer to settle disputes rather than fight them out.Families who are transitioning are driven further apart by the litigation/ trialprocess. Mediation and collaboration give families a way to arrange their financiallives in the most mutually beneficial way possible, which also gives them the toolsto communicate effectively into the future.

Most memorable mediation moment: When you get the parties to actually listento each other

Most helpful advice offered to you when starting to mediate: Charge per sessionto be paid at the end of the session.

Least helpful advice offered to you when starting to mediate: I was advised notto save my notes. I think this is bad advice because people call back.

Any advice to offer to new mediators: I co-mediated my first divorce mediationcase with a social worker. Our combined skills were a wonderful complement tothe process. Try it!

30


If you could meet anyone, living or dead, who would it be and why? The DalaiLama

Hobbies and interests: Travel; crafts, which include making and designing jewelryand stained glass.

Favorite music, movie or sport: I love Jazz and R&B music

Last book read: The Help

Wise advice: Do what makes you happy.

What would you want with you if marooned on an island? Not what but who: myhusband and my two children.

AN INVITATION FOR MCFM MEMBERS ONLYAll MCFM members are invited to fill out the Member Profile Questionnaireposted on the MEMBERS ONLY page of mcfm.org and submit it for publicationin the FMQ. Please email your questionnaire with a personal photo (head shot) and anoptional photo of your primary mediation space (or office) [email protected]. Since the questionnaire is intended to help others learnabout you, feel free to customize it by omitting questions listed, or adding questionsyou prefer. Only questions answered will be published, and all submissions may beedited for clarity and length. Please help us get to know you.

“All that happens means something; nothing you do is ever insignificant.”

Aldous Huxley

31


MCFM NEWS

2012 ELECTION RESULTSMCFM is pleased to announce that the following people will serve as Officersand Directors.

MCFM gratefully acknowledges the contributions of all serving officers anddirectors, and those of former directors: Lynda J. Robbins, Mary A. Samberg andMary Socha.

MCFM’S NEXT FREEPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP

MEDIATION PEER SUPPORTLynda J. Robbins and Lynn K. Cooper will lead a discussion of how peer supportworks: in groups of mediators who meet regularly, in various kinds of mentor programs(which the MCFM may be expanding) and we may even hear from a very active clientsupport group at the end.

Wednesday, October 10th

WELLESLEY PUBLIC LIBRARYWakelin Room, 2:00 – 400 PM

PLEASE REGISTER IN ADVANCE ATWWW.MCFM.ORG

MCFM OFFICERS:

President: Jonathan E. FieldsVice President: Laurie S. UdellVice President: Kate FangerVice President: Barbara KellmanClerk: Tanya GurevichTreasurer: Kathleen A. Townsend Past President: Lynn K. Cooper

MCFM DIRECTORS:

S. Tracy Fisher, Rebecca J. Gagné, DavidKellem, William C. Leonard, StevenNisenbaum, Vicki Shemin, Diane W.Spears, Crystal Thorpe, Les Wallerstein,Marion Lee Wasserman & Fran L.Whyman

Directors Emeriti: John A. Fiske, JanetB. Weinberger, Jerome H. Weinstein &Barbara N. White.

32

Summer 2012 • Vol. 11 No. 3Continued on next page

ATTENDANCE AT MCFM PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPSQUALIFIES FOR CREDIT EARNED TOWARDS

BECOMING AN MCFM CERTIFIED MEDIATOR

CONTACT TRACY FISCHER FOR CERTIFICATION [email protected]

MEDIATION PEER GROUP MEETINGSCentral Massachusetts Mediators Group: We serve mediators in Central Mass andtowns along Rt. 2 West of Rt. 128. We meet to discuss topics and/or cases, sometimeswith guest speakers, in the offices of Interpeople Inc. in Littleton. Interpeople is locatedabout 1/2 a mile off Rt. 495, at Exit 31. Meetings begin at 8:30 AM on the last Thursdayof every month, except December, July and August. If you are a family and divorcemediator — attorney or non-attorney — you are welcome to join us. New members areasked to please call ahead of time: 978-486-3338, or email Shuneet [email protected].

North Suburban Mediators Group: Join fellow mediators meeting to learn and shareand network. Meetings are held at 8:30 a.m. on the second Tuesday of the month fromJanuary to June and from September to November at the offices of Lynda Robbins andSusan DeMatteo, 34 Salem Street, Suite 202, Reading. Please call Lynda at 781-944-0156 for information and directions. All MCFM members are welcome.

Pioneer-Valley Mediators Group: This Western Mass group will be meeting monthlyin December on the first Wednesday of every month at the end of the day, from 4 to 6pm or 6 to 8 pm (depending on the interest) in Northampton at a location to beannounced. Please email Kathy Townsend for further information [email protected].

Mediators in Search of a Group? As mediators we almost always work alone withour clients. Peer supervision offers mediators an opportunity to share their experiencesof that process, and to learn from each other in a relaxed, safe setting. Most MCFMdirectors are members of peer supervision groups. All it takes to start a new group is theinterest of a few, like-minded mediators and a willingness to get together on a semi-regular, informal basis. In the hope of promoting peer supervision groups a boardmember will volunteer to help facilitate your initial meetings. Please contact KathyTownsend <[email protected]> who will coordinate this outreach, and putmediators in touch with like-minded mediators.

33


OFFER MCFM’s BROCHURESIN YOUR WAITING ROOM

Copies of MCFM’s NEW brochure are available for members only. Brochure costsare: [1-20 @ 50¢ each, 21-50 @ 40¢ each & 51+ @ 30¢ each] plus shipping, (unlessyou pre-arrange to pick them up at a professional development meeting or other MCFMevent). A blank area on the back is provided for members to personalize their brochures,or to address for mailing. Remember: when you buy 21 or more brochures the “percopy” price is less than the cost to print!

TO OBTAIN COPIES MEMBERS MAYcall Ramona Goutiere: 781-449-4430

or email: [email protected]

CLASSIC MCFM “T” SHIRTSEqual blends of cotton & polyester

Choose black or creamCAN’T DECIDE? ORDER ONE OF EACH!

All lettering & graphics are green

SIZES AVAILABLE: S, M, L, & XLSUPPLIES ARE LIMITEDCost $10 each plus S&H*

*S&H: $3 for 1 shirt, $4 for 2, $5 for 3, etc…Make checks payable to MCFM, Inc.

SEND YOUR CHECK & ORDER TO:Ramona Goutiere

P.O. Box 59Ashland, NH 03217-0059

QUESTIONS? CALL: 781-449-4430

34


HELP BUILD AN ARCHIVE!

In the spring of 2006, MCFM entered into an agreement with the Department of DisputeResolution at the University of Massachusetts to create an archive of Massachusettsfamily-related mediation materials. The two key goals are to preserve our history andmake it available for research purposes.

We're looking for anything and everything related to family mediation in Massachusetts— both originals and copies — including: meeting agendas and minutes, budgets,treasurer's reports, committee reports, correspondence, publications, fliers, posters,photographs, advertisements and announcements.

We need your help to maximize this opportunity to preserve the history of mediation inMassachusetts. Please rummage through your office files, attics, basements andgarages. If you discover materials that you are willing to donate please contact LesWallerstein at [email protected].

“Man: An animal so lost in rapturous contemplation

of what he thinks he is as to overlook what

he indubitably ought to be.”

Ambrose Bierce

35


ANNOUNCEMENTS

All mediators and friends of mediation are invited to submit announcements of interestto the mediation community to [email protected], for free publication.

MCFM’S GALA CELEBRATION COMMEMORATING OUR 30TH ANNIVERSARY

AT THE MIT ENDICOTT HOUSE IN DEDHAM

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012, Cocktails & hors d’oeuvres

6:00 – 7:30 PM

Dinner & lively entertainment7:30– 10:00 PM

INVITATIONS WILL BE MAILED TO MCFM MEMBERS ONLYSPACE IS LIMITED: RESERVE YOUR PLACE EARLY

Guests of members may attend if space permits after August 15TH

SAVE THE DATE

8TH ANNUAL JOHN ADAMS FISKE AWARDNOMINATIONS NOW OPEN!

In 2005 the Massachusetts Council on Family Mediation established the John FiskeAward for Excellence in Mediation. Please tell us in 100 words or less why yournominee has demonstrated excellence in and/or contributed to family mediation inMassachusetts.

Submit your nomination by email [email protected]

SUBMIT YOUR NOMINATION NOW!

36

Summer 2012 • Vol. 11 No. 3Continued on next page

CHILD SUPPORT PANEL SEEKS GUIDELINE INPUTDEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

The Trial Court is inviting public comment and suggestions concerning theMassachusetts Child Support Guidelines. If suggestions include specific changesto the guidelines, they should include specific sections, the exact new languageproposed and reasons for the proposed amendments.

Written comments may be emailed to [email protected], orsubmitted in writing to the Child Support Guidelines Task Force at theAdministrative Office of the Trial Court, Suite 540, Two Center Plaza, Boston,MA, 02108.

The task force will also hold five public forums at which written statements maybe delivered and brief oral statements may be made. The forums will be held inSeptember in locations across the state.

ELDER DECISIONS PRESENTSConflict Resolution Skills Training:Working with Families in Conflict

Thursday, September 20th, 9 am- 3pmThe Walker Center, 171 Grove Street, Newton

Families don't always agree on what is best for Mom or Dad as they face difficulttransitions. This training will help you work with clients and their families whenthere is disagreement in the ranks. You will learn tools to run more effective familymeetings, Wwork with parties with strong emotions and facilitate consensus-building.

Cost: $195 through August 21, 2012 ($225 thereafter)Includes lunch, snacks, and course materials.

Earn 5 hours of CCM continuing education credits, 5 Social Work CEUsDETAILS AND REGISTRATION AT: www.elderdecisions.com

$100 DISCOUNT FOR MCFM MEMBERS

37


ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL FAMILY MEDIATORSFOUNDING CONFERENCE

Returning to our roots, family mediators have come together and formed a new,national organization: the Academy of Professional Family Mediators. Our firstnational conference will launch our national organization and, in spirit, launch a newFamily Mediation Movement! Our conference will include sharing and developing ofour vision, as well as sharing advanced mediation concepts, skills, friendship and lotsof fun.

September 27-30, 2012Sea Crest Beach Resort in Cape Cod

For more information visitwww.professionalfamilymediators.org

30-HOUR BASIC MEDIATION TRAININGPresented by The Mediation & Training Collaborative (TMTC)

Northampton, MASeptember 27 and October 2, 13, 16 & 27

Three Saturdays 9-5 and two Tuesdays 3:30-9

This highly interactive, practice-based training is open to anyone who wishes toincrease skill in helping others deal with conflict, whether through formal mediation orinformal third-party intervention processes in other professional settings. TMTC is acourt-approved mediation program, and this training meets SJC Rule 8 and Guidelinestraining requirements for those who wish to become court-qualified mediators. Socialwork CECs and attorney CLEs available upon request.

For more details or brochure contact Susan Hackneyat [email protected] or 413-475-1505

or visit www.mediationandtraining.org.

38


METROWEST MEDIATION SERVICES, INC.VOLUNTEER MEDIATOR TRAINING

OCTOBER 2012MetroWest Mediation Services will be offering a 36-hour mediator training for peoplein MetroWest who are interested in becoming volunteer mediators in the Framingham,Natick, Concord and Marlborough District Courts.

To be eligible for this training, interested people must agree to volunteer 2 half-days a month for at least one year. An interview and references will be requiredprior to acceptance into the program. There is a $100 fee to cover the cost ofmaterials. The Volunteer Mediator Training will take place at 600 Concord Street inFramingham as follows:

If interested, call Jan at 508-872-9495 or email [email protected] or visit www.metrowestmediationservices.org

DIVORCE IN MASSACHUSETTS:WITH OR WITHOUT A LAWYER

Jerome Weinstein & Les Wallerstein

THE CAMBRIDGE CENTER FOR ADULT EDUCATION42 Brattle Street

Saturday, October 13, 20129:30 AM - 12:30 PM

When the issue of divorce is raised, most people don’t know where to turn. How do Iget information? Do I need an attorney? Should I pay a retainer? What will happen tomy children and my home? This course will give you information about what you canand cannot do and what kinds of risks are involved. It will also address when you needan attorney (with the attendant costs) or when you can use a mediator or do it yourself.You will also receive resources and a bibliography.

Online Registration: http://www.ccae.orgPhone Registration: 617-547-6789

Cost: $61 Limited to 20

Wednesday October 10 8:30-12:30Friday October 12 8:30-3:30

Monday October 15 8:30-12:30Wednesday October 17 8:30-12:30

Friday October 19 8:30-3:30Monday October 22 8:30-12:30Friday October 26 8:30-2:30

Make-up Date: October 29

39


DIVORCE MEDIATION TRAINING ASSOCIATES (DMTA)October 17, 18, 19, November 2 and 3, 2012

Location: Wellesley College Club

John Fiske and Diane Neumann present Divorce Mediation Training, an intensive, 5-day training program that equips you with the skills of a divorce mediator and grants acertificate upon completion of the training. You do not need to be an attorney to take thiscourse. We are one of the oldest and most recognized mediation training organizationsin the country because we’re not just trainers- we’re both full-time mediators.

John and Diane have been teaching mediation since 1988 and are proud that severalMassachusetts Probate Court judges have completed our training program. Each of ushas over 30 years of experience in our respective private mediation practice. Thiscomprehensive training in mediation includes:

• 40 hours of training (exceeds the Massachusetts Mediator Confidentiality Statute)• A Certificate of Divorce Mediation Training upon completion of the 40 hour training• Course materials include a DMTA training video and resource materials• Approved by the National Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)

For more information:John Fiske: 617-354-7133

Diane Neumann: 617-926-9100

THE CHILD & FAMILY WEBGUIDEONLINE ACCESS TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIONThe Child & Family WebGuide was created in April 2001 by Professor Fred Rothbaumand Dr. Nancy Martland of the Tufts University Eliot-Pearson Department of ChildDevelopment. The WebGuide describes trustworthy websites on topics of interest toparents and professionals that have been systematically evaluated by graduate studentsand faculty in child development. The WebGuide is easily searched by subjects,including many of constant concern to family mediators, e.g., divorce, separation andstepparents. It also offers several features requested by parents, e.g., ‘ask an expert’ sitesand ‘research news’ sites. The goal of the WebGuide is to give the public easy access tothe best child development information on the Web.

www.cfw.tufts.edu

40


THE DIVORCE RECOVERY SERIESLed by Mary Vanderveer, M. Ed., LCSW

The Divorce Recovery Series is an outreach program of The FirstCongregational Church in Norwood, offered as a community service. Groupsare ongoing and continue throughout the year. All participants are welcome,regardless of religious affiliation.

Divorce Recovery is a support group for those who are separated, consideringdivorce, or divorced. It offers support and healing to people experiencing thepain of separation and divorce. Group members gain knowledge regarding theemotional stages of divorce and how to cope with lifestyle changes. Eachsession includes discussion and presentation of topics such as denial andbargaining, anger, depression, acceptance, forgiveness, alone withoutloneliness, letting go, spirituality in one’s life, and creating a new lifestyle. Thecost is $90 for eight consecutive weekly sessions.Moving Ahead is a support group for those who have completed DivorceRecovery that addresses the needs of people who are rebuilding their lives afterdivorce. As a person’s self-esteem takes a toll when experiencing divorce, thefocus is to support people in creating a new and positive lifestyle. Topicsinclude affirming and validating ourselves, self-acceptance, takingresponsibility, changing negative thinking, reconnecting and developingspirituality, developing support systems, setting limits and boundaries. Thecost is $90 for eight consecutive weekly sessions.

FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT: http://firstcongregational-norwood.com

TO REGISTER: call 781-762-3320, or email:[email protected]

NEW BEGINNINGSAn interfaith support group for separated, divorced, widowed and single adultsin the Greater Boston Area. Meets year-round, every Thursday, from 7:00 to9:00 PM, at Wellesley Hills Congregational Church, 207 Washington Street.For more information call 781-235-8612. Annual Dues $50.

For program details & schedule visit www.newbeginnings.org

41


COMMUNITY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CENTERFALL 2012 BASIC MEDIATION TRAINING

This 33-hour training is for you if you are interested in making a shift in yourprofessional role or incorporating new skills into your current work.

This 33-hour training provides hands-on skill development, combining roleplays,exercises and presentations. It meets the statutory requirements for mediatorconfidentiality related to the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 233, Section 23Cand can be the first step toward certification under Rule 8: SJC Rules on DisputeResolution.

Thursday, November 1st @ 9:30am–5pmFriday, November 2nd @ 9:30am–5pm

Monday, November 5th @ 4:30pm–7:30pmThursday, November 8th @ 9:00am–4:30pm*

Friday, November 9th @ 9:30am–5pm* note earlier start/finish

Where: CDSC, 60 Gore Street, East Cambridge, Massachusetts(near Lechmere T, Galleria, courthouses).

Cost: $695 ($650 if registration received by October 1, 2012)

ENROLL EARLY! Limited to 24. On-site training available for groups of 10 or more.

For more info, contact CDSC:Tel. 617-876-5376 • Fax: 617-876-6663

E-mail: [email protected]

THE FMQ WANTS YOU!

The Family Mediation Quarterly is always open to submissions,especially from new authors. Every mediator has stories to telland skills to share.To submit articles or discuss proposed articles call LesWallerstein (781) 862-1099 or email [email protected]

42


JOIN US

MEMBERSHIPMCFM membership is open to all practitioners and friends of family mediation.MCFM invites guest speakers to present topics of interest at four, free, professionaldevelopment meetings annually. These educational meetings often satisfy certificationrequirements. Members are encouraged to bring guests. MCFM members also receivethe Family Mediation Quarterly and are welcome to serve on any MCFM Committee.Annual membership dues are $90, or $50 for fulltime students. Please direct allmembership inquiries to Ramona Goutiere at [email protected].

REFERRAL DIRECTORYEvery MCFM member with an active mediation practice who adheres to thePractice Standards for mediators in Massachusetts is eligible to be listed inMCFM’s Referral Directory. Each listing in the Referral Directory allows a memberto share detailed information explaining her/his mediation practice and philosophy withprospective clients. The most current directory is always available online atwww.mcfm.org. The annual Referral Directory fee is $60. Please direct all referraldirectory inquiries to Rebecca J. Gagné at [email protected].

PRACTICE STANDARDSMCFM was the first organization to issue Practice Standards for mediators inMassachusetts. To be listed in the MCFM Referral Directory each member must agreeto uphold the MCFM Standards of Practice. MCFM’s Practice Standards areavailable online at www.mcfm.org.

CERTIFICATION & RECERTIFICATIONMCFM was the first organization to certify family mediators in Massachusetts.Certification is reserved for mediators with significant mediation experience, advancedtraining and education. Extensive mediation experience may be substituted for anadvanced academic degree.

MCFM’s certification & recertification requirements are available online atwww.mcfm.org. Every MCFM certified mediator is designated as such in theonline Referral Directory. Certified mediators must have malpractice insurance, andcertification must be renewed every two years. Only certified mediators are eligible toreceive referrals from the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court through MCFM.

Certification applications cost $150 and re-certification applications cost $50. For moreinformation contact S. Tracy Fischer at [email protected]. Forcertification or re-certification applications contact Ramona Goutiere [email protected].

43


DIRECTORATE

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCIL ON FAMILY MEDIATION, INC.P.O. Box 59, Ashland, NH 03217-0059

Local Telephone & Fax: 781-449-4430email: [email protected]

www.mcfm.org

OFFICERS

President Jonathan E. Fields, Fields & Dennis, LLP, 20 William Street,Suite 165, Wellesley, MA 02481, 781-489-6776, [email protected]

Vice-President Laurie S. Udell, 399 Chestnut Street, 2nd Floor Needham, MA 02492, 781-449-3355, [email protected]

Vice-President Kate Fanger, Kate Fanger Mediation, 21 Properzi Way, Suite G, Somerville, MA 02143, 617-599-6412,[email protected]

Vice-President Barbara Kellman, 1244 Boylston Street, Suite 200, ChestnutHill, MA 02467, 617-232-8080, [email protected]

Clerk Tanya Gurevich, Ginsburg & Leshin, LLP, One Hollis Street,Wellesley, MA 02482, 781-235-3332,[email protected]

Treasurer Kathleen A. Townsend, Divorce Mediation Group, Inc., 1441 Main Street, Springfield, MA 01103, 413-733-4444,[email protected]

Past President Lynn K. Cooper, 262 Kenrick Street, Newton, MA 02458617-527-3152, [email protected]

DIRECTORS S. Tracy Fisher, Rebecca J. Gagné, David Kellem, WilliamC. Leonard, Steven Nisenbaum, Vicki Shemin, Diane W.Spears, Crystal Thorpe, Les Wallerstein, Marion LeeWasserman & Fran L. Whyman

DIRECTORS John A. Fiske, Janet B. Weinberger, Jerome Weinstein &Barbara N. White

ADMINISTRATOR Ramona Goutiere, Goutiere Professional Business Services,P.O. Box 59, Ashland, NH 03217-0059, 781-449-4430,[email protected]

EMERITUS

MCFMFamily Mediation Quarterly

Les Wallerstein, Editor1620 Massachusetts Avenue

Lexington, MA 02420(781) 862-1099

[email protected]

The FMQ is dedicated to family mediators working with traditional and non-traditionalfamilies. All family mediators share common interests and concerns. The FMQ willprovide a forum to explore that common ground.

The FMQ intends to be a journal of practical use to family mediators. As mediation isdesigned to resolve conflicts, the FMQ will not shy away from controversy. The FMQwelcomes the broadest spectrum of diverse opinions that affect the practice of familymediation.

The contents of the FMQ are published at the discretion of the editor, in consultation withthe MCFM Board of Directors. The FMQ does not necessarily express the views of theMCFM unless specifically stated.

The FMQ is mailed and emailed to all MCFM members. The FMQ is mailed to all Probate& Family Court Judges, all local Dispute Resolution Coordinators, all Family ServiceOfficers and all law school libraries in Massachusetts. An archive of all previous editionsof the FMQ are available online in PDF at <www.mcfm.org>, accompanied by acumulative index of articles to facilitate data retrieval.

MCFM members may submit notices of mediation-related events for free publication.Complimentary publication of notices from mediation-related organizations is availableon a reciprocal basis. Commercial advertising is also available.

Please submit all contributions for the FMQ to the editor, either by email or computer disk.Submissions may be edited for clarity and length, and must scrupulously safeguard clientconfidentiality. The following deadlines for all submissions will be observed:

Summer: July 15th Fall: October 15thWinter: January 15th Spring: April 15th

All MCFM members and friends of family mediation are encouraged to contributeto the FMQ. Every mediator has stories to tell and skills to teach. Please share yours.

EDITOR’S NOTICE


44

INSPIRING SETTLEMENTS SINCE 1982

• INSPIRINGSETTLEMENTSSINCE1982•INSPIRINGSETTLEM

ENTS

SINC

E19

82•

The Family Mediation Quarterly is printed on paper stockmanufactured with non-polluting wind-generated energy,100% recycled (with 100% post consumer recycled fiber),

processed chlorine free & FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified.

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCILON FAMILY MEDIATION

MASSACHUSETTS COUNCILON FAMILY MEDIATION

1982 2012MASS

ACHUSETTS COUNCIL

ON

FAMILY MEDIATION

30th

www.mcfm.org

family mediation quarterly

Documents

family mediators

divorceby john

john fiske17

family law area

years andthe

haynes12 john michael

preglimonyby shari motro5

ofmy practice