Posted by State Court Administrative Office on Aug 15, 2016 1:28:34 PM
By Doug Van Epps, Director, Office of Dispute Resolution
Three new initiatives signal increased interest in expanding the array of ADR options available
to parties for resolving their conflicts in domestic relations and child protection cases, two of
which are prompted by recently enacted legislation.
First, the Collaborative Law Rules Committee has been convened to provide recommendations
to the Michigan Supreme Court for adopting a new court rule to guide the development of
collaborative law in Michigan.
The Uniform Collaborative Law Act (2014 PA 159; MCL
691.1331-691.1354) outlines a process through which parties retain attorneys for the sole
purpose of mutually negotiating a consent judgment without using any adversarial court
process. In fact, under the terms of their engagement of collaborative lawyers, should any party
find it necessary to go to court over a contested matter, the lawyers automatically remove
themselves from the case, and the case would move forward in the traditional manner. Both
parties must agree to use this process; it cannot be ordered by a court.
The notion of using a problem-solving approach in domestic relations actions, already widely
used in many types of cases, is expected to increase as more attorneys are trained in the
process. It is also likely that parties in general civil cases will explore whether a problemsolving
approach to their dispute may better suit their needs than a traditional adversarial
process.
Related to the topic of problem solving outside of the courtroom, 2014 PA 526 (MCL 722.27c)
created a structure for the practice of parenting coordination in the state. A parenting coordinator
is someone appointed by a court for a specific period of time to help implement parenting time
orders and to help resolve disputes that fall within the scope of the court’s order of
appointment. Just as with collaborative law, a parenting coordinator can only be appointed by
agreement of the parties. The job of the parenting coordinator is to make fairly immediate
recommendations regarding a variety of issues parents may not agree on, including
transportation and transfers of children, vacation and holiday schedules, discipline, health care
management, and other areas outlined in the statute.
Parenting coordinators are most typically engaged in high-conflict divorces, and their ability to
quickly make recommendations without the need for a formal complaint filed in the Friend of the
Court makes this process particularly helpful where parents need routine and quick assistance in
resolving disputes. The SCAO’s Friend of the Court Bureau has convened a committee that will
determine whether or not to recommend that the Michigan Supreme Court adopt any new court
rules or amendments to guide the development of this practice in the state.
Finally, the SCAO has convened a Child Protection Mediation Court Rules Committee to
develop court rule proposals for codifying best practices in mediating child protection cases.
Child protection mediation is not new. For over 15 years, a number of courts have been
providing mediation in child abuse and neglect cases. The idea is fairly simple: instead of all
parties appearing on the day of a hearing and meeting in separate rooms to discuss reunification
objectives, services, and activities, these discussions instead take place with all parties at a single
table, with the conversation facilitated by a trained mediator. Parents, GALs, attorneys, social
workers, assistant prosecutors, and other interested parties all hear the same discussion at the
same time, and all work toward developing a reunification plan that the parents can realistically
work toward achieving.
In this setting, parties reach agreement in approximately 80 percent of the cases. A 2006 study
of the service by the Michigan State University School of Social Work identified numerous
positive outcomes, chief of which was that a mediator reduced the amount of time a child was in
an impermanent setting by approximately 12 months.
With judges in over 20 jurisdictions recently expressing interest in also offering these services,
the SCAO determined that future services might be best developed through court rule guidance
on such topics as confidentiality, scheduling, party attendance, and other topics.
All three initiatives are expected to issue recommendations for rule proposals in 2017.
For additional information, contact Doug Van Epps, Director, Office of Dispute Resolution, at
517-373-4840 or vaneppsd@courts.mi.gov
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/OfficesPrograms/ODR/Pages/default.aspx
