The mediation policy and ethics questions encountered in the recent Texas Supreme Court decision In re Lee are enough to fill several blog posts. Over the next few posts, we’ll look at the many policy implications of this remarkable decision. Topics discussed will include:

• Should the finality of a mediated agreement trump changes for the child’s best interest?
• In custody policy, do mediation and arbitration differ?
• When there’s been no intimate partner violence, should settlements be irrevocable?
• Who decides potential endangerment to a child?
• What can judges do when parents in mediation act against their child’s interest?
• When a mediated agreement sets rules over non-parties, what governs their enforcement?

First, some background. In re Lee was an appeal of a judge’s refusal to enter two parents’ custody mediation agreement. In mediation, the father (Redus) and mother (Lee) had renegotiated the terms of their daughters’ custody. Their agreement had a few notable features. First, it spelled out a long, detailed list of terms attempting to ensure that Lee’s new husband would never be within five miles of the child. The agreement also featured a capitalized, bold-faced and underlined statement that both parents signed, agreeing that they understood the agreement was irrevocable.

Read original article


Tags: custody mediation agreement, Mediation Policy