President Obama and former President Clinton may not believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but in mediation each party is entitled to his or her time and is free to express his or her thoughts, opinions and feelings. The mediation process is forgiving – in that sense.
Now, before you respond and get upset.
A couple of weeks ago we learned about the horrific torture and killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and 3 other embassy staff by a “small and savage group” of Islamist radicals who were offended by a film/documentary created by an American which insulted the Prophet Muhammad. My comment above comes from some news reporting that President Obama first condemned the film that was made and rejecting things that denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
While I do not usually make comments on political issues, I thought this was an opportunity to point out one of the major benefits of mediation in divorce. I am a strong believer in Freedom of Speech and the other Bill of Rights that each American has the benefit of. I do not want to see the diminution of any of our rights. Maybe we can give President Obama the benefit of the doubt – maybe he just doesn’t appreciate the value of our freedoms and, in particular, the Freedom of Speech, the freedom to express one’s opinion and beliefs and thoughts. While I may not agree with another person’s opinions or values on a particular subject, I do believe that each person has a right to express their thoughts and opinions and to open debate by others in response.
I could go on, but that is not the purpose of this blog post.
In this country we share the benefit of Freedom of Speech which is such an important and fundamental right that we are fortunate to have. However, our freedom is not without limit – such as one cannot engage in speech intended to incite violence, or to create a dangerous situation, or libelous or slanderous speech. So, in certain venues there are limits to our freedom of speech. Mediation is a venue where all participants are given a voice and an opportunity to express their thoughts, opinions, feelings and wants without judgment and without the comments being labeled as “irrelevant” which can happen in other venues and platforms where people choose to divorce.
If you have never been to court, one of the things that I can share with you, as an attorney, is that arguments that are presented in court need to be relevant and presented in a succinct and efficient way. Today, there are more cases than ever before presented in court every day which means that there is limited time in which a Judge can hear a particular case. What that means for the lawyers presenting the case or for the parties who may appear pro se (on their own behalf), is that they will want to get to the heart of the matter and make their point as quickly as possible. Often, particularly when parties represent themselves, there is a sense of wanting to tell the story “from the beginning”, not leaving out any facts so that a point can be made. However, the courts, because of their full calendar, do not have the time or “patience” to hear every fact, every story, and every incident. The Judge wants to hear the “relevant facts” – in other words, the facts that will help him/her to decide the issues presented.
However, when a couple decides to divorce there is more going on than just deciding the issues (division of assets, spousal support, child support, visitation and parenting plans), people come with all of their parts – their intellectual parts, their emotional parts, their spiritual parts, to name a few. So how can people who divorce have their voice heard, not in a vacuum, but also considering all of their parts – all of their feelings and thoughts that have? While courts may try to consider the effects upon the family, in mediation, time belongs to the participants – not to a Judge who has hundreds of cases to decide. In mediation, the participants decide how much time to spend on a particular issue. Perhaps there is something emotional that needs to be shared and talked about so that a fair agreement can be reached or so that issues can be decided together, and so that each participant feels heard. Decisions made in connection with a mediated divorce can be considered and weighed in light of their impact upon the family and parenting plans can be “tried out” while parties are mediating their divorce. The participants can take the time to “try out” various options and see what really works before final decisions are made and final papers written.
If you have watched any court TV shows (Judge Judy, The People’s Court, Judge Greg Mathis Show etc) where the parties are interviewed in the hallway after their case has been decided, often one of the parties (usually the one who lost) will say that the Judge “didn’t let me talk” or they “didn’t get a chance to present my whole case”. This is simply because of the reason I mentioned above – Judges are busy. They have many, many cases to hear and decide. They simply do not have the time to hear all of the specifics and each incident which, to the parties, may appear to be relevant to the case and they Judge may ask them to hurry up or make their point.
Divorce is a highly emotional event, and, while going to court is an available option, the parties may find that other available options may be more appropriate to deciding and determining the important decisions to be made, decisions that the parties will have to live with for years after the divorce is granted. Freedom of speech, freedom to express a point of view and freedom to make the decisions in connection with one’s divorce, do you want those decisions to be made by a Judge who doesn’t know you and doesn’t have the time to listen to you express your feelings, emotions, needs and the basis for your opinion in determining the outcome of your divorce? Or do you want to participate and have a say in the outcome of your divorce? The choice is yours. What do you choose?
