Typically, when spouses are involved in court cases, they are referred to as “Petitioner” or “Respondent” by judges, court staff, and attorneys.

In legalese, a Petitioner submits a formal application to a court requesting judicial action and a Respondent is required to answer or defend themselves in response. These are similar terms to Plaintiff and Defendant, which typically contribute to people assuming adversarial mindsets.

California’s Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Senate Bill 1427 to provide parents in 2026 the option to no longer need use those adversarial labels unless a contested hearing is requested.

It makes a difference when parents no longer need to refer to one another as Petitioner and Respondent, but instead simply by their names. This change can reduce any distance and hostility the language creates because it’s John and Jane Doe who are dealing with their issues, not John as Petitioner and Jane as Respondent.

Words can create a mindset and avoiding adversarial ones can result in participants coming to agreements.

A recent article by Salzburg mediator Michael Lardy has caught the attention of many who are asking if Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used during mediation or possibly replace human mediators.

It was only in November 2022 that ChatGPT launched and within five days a million people registered. Lardy cites a Goldman Sachs study that, “in the near future, 44% of the work of lawyers and jurists will be taken over by AI.” Can the same claim be made for the role of mediators?

Consider the critical mediator skill of helping parties distinguish between positions and needs. When asked to describe the difference between the two, ChatGPT 4.0 responded: Positions are the concrete demands or stances a party takes in a conflict. For example: “I want a 10% raise.” Needs are the underlying interests, values, or motives behind the positions. For example: The need for recognition or financial security. In summary: Positions are what we want; needs are why we want it. Could ChatGPT then effectively analyze a disputant’s statements and identify their position and needs? Time will tell.

It brings to mind an AI Mediation focused webinar promoted this warning for participants: “AI systems will not replace mediators, but will replace mediators who do not engage with AI.” This is a perspective that’s been accepted by a vast amount of industries and should probably be taken seriously.