Recently “Good Morning Arizona” (KPHO) aired an interview with Mara Linder on divorce mediation. In an accompanying article she compared the cost of using the courts for a divorce versus using mediation. As she described it, using the courts for a divorce in Arizona can involve motions, hearings, conferences, testimony and appearances before a judge; take one to two years and can cost $30,000 to $50,000 in legal fees and court costs. And as she says, the process tends to put even more strain on the relationship and increase the conflict.

 Ms. Linder said that divorce using mediation in Arizona has minimal involvement with the court — no hearings, no motions, no witnesses and no trial. The typical time frame is three to five months and the costs can range from $2,900 to $3,900. And as true for other kinds of mediation, in divorce mediation the parties address issues important to them and create their own arrangements. The parties are likely to find the process productive and enable them to part ways on more respectful terms. This is especially important when children are involved and co-parenting relationships need to be established.

The issues that are addressed include division of assets and liabilities, child custody and visitation, child support, animal companions plus other financial considerations such as retirement accounts and taxes.

Mediation isn’t for all couples. In situations involving physical or emotional abuse, substance abuse, and where one party holds significant power over the other party, mediation is not appropriate. I have had one acquaintance going into divorce mediation ask me how he can come out ahead in the mediation. I had to suggest to him that he may not have been ready for mediation. Divorce mediation is not another venue to continue to fight, but safe venue to come together to meet, confer and reach agreements.

It’s important to remember that mediation is voluntary—that is the parties truly desire to work together for their outcome. And to remember that the mediator is neutral and doesn’t advocate or advise either party. The mediator helps open communication between the parties so that their problem solving is more likely to be effective. And that mediation is confidential, which is important to many couples.

 But when the parties can honor the relationship that they once had and can be open and honest, in mediation they can reach agreements that work for both of them.

The “Good Morning Arizona” host was most impressed with one fact: He made it clear what caught his attention was the cost. Yes, mediation is a less expensive alternative, but in the minds of many people in dispute resolution, including me, mediation is a better option for the parties and for the children.

While many people have heard of or have some limited experience with mediation, few know of its use in criminal cases.

               One major use of mediation in criminal cases began as an experiment in Kitchener, Ontario during the early 1970’s when a probation officer convinced a judge that youths convicted of vandalism should meet with the victims of their crimes. This moment is credited as the beginning of what is now known as Victim-Offender Mediation (or Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programs).

               In the U.S. most Victim Offender Mediation programs are voluntary, offered to youthful first offenders and are conducted post-conviction. The mediator first meets with the parties to determine if the victim will not be further harmed by a meeting with the offender and that both parties are psychologically capable of constructively participating in the process.

In the face-to-face meeting the victim has the opportunity to speak about the experience of victimization and loss. The offender has the opportunity to express remorse and a chance to repair the injury, which could be any number of actions, such as restitution and in-kind services. With most Victim Offender Mediation programs in the U.S. the offender does not benefit from participating in the process by reduced sentence or other penalty, but the victims often feel that the mediation has served as a healing process for them.

               I was once describing these programs in an undergraduate class. I noticed that one student from Canada had a smile on his face during my description. I asked him if he had anything to add. He did: He volunteered that he had participated in Victim Offender Mediation as a youth. He had shot out his neighbors’ windows with a pellet gun. He said that at the time he felt the experience was a “joke.” But he said that years later he recognized that the experience had been one of the most formative experiences of his teenage years as it taught him that actions have consequences and that he had to take responsibility for them.

               Victim Offender Mediation has been used in a variety of cases including manslaughter. It is not appropriate for all offenders nor all victims. But in carefully selected cases victims, offenders and society overall benefits.

               Some states are now using mediation in criminal proceedings before conviction. Both misdemeanor and felony cases are now mediated when the court determines issues such as sentencing options, restitution, admissibility of evidence and others could be effectively handled using this approach. In these cases, a neutral mediator convenes a session with the prosecuting attorney and the defendant to resolve issues that could expedite the trial or resolution of the case.  

               Mediation is a very flexible process. The same process that can aid victims and offenders can aid family members and co-workers with disputes as well.