Let me say this up front: I candidly admit that I’m the embodiment of the “professional oxymoron” (most of my colleagues would prefer to just ignore the “oxy” part). On the one hand I am, and have been for many years, very cynical regarding all things family court (i.e., you cannot be given a 15-minute block of time within which to decide the fate and immediate futures of spouses, parents, and children, based on a maximum 8-page affidavit that is most always “borderline perjury”) … while on the other hand I remain the eternal optimist (the Pollyanna) who wants to believe that all party-litigants, when given the choice between doing the right thing by making meaningful compromises in order to achieve total control over their joint or collective futures [“Plan A”] versus these same parties placing these decisions (which will affect their lives and the lives of their children) into the hands of perfect strangers [“Plan B”], would choose “Plan A” 100% of the time.
And the eternal optimist in me would be wrong at least 50% of the time.
Having now been swimming in the mediators’ pool for approaching 7 years, I’m convinced there are unintended consequences resulting from the mandatory part of mediation in family court litigation in South Carolina.
I’ll try to explain if you’re interested in reading on.