Mediation

• We at North Idaho Family Law, PLLC, are licensed attorneys who, for many years, have exclusively practiced family law. We are also Idaho Supreme Court Approved Child Custody Mediators. Our extensive experience as attorneys specializing in family law ensures that we understand your issues and concerns as well as the law pertaining to your case. However, it is important to recognize that when we are functioning as mediators, we are not functioning as attorneys for either party. We will not be advocating on behalf of either party, providing legal advice, or assessing the strength of your respective legal positions—such is not the role of a mediator. 
• Instead of assuming our usual role of “advocate,” we will be assuming the role of “facilitator.” In our role as mediators, we will be serving as a third-party neutral to help you, the parties, communicate with one another in a focused and respectful manner in furtherance of achieving a resolution to your dispute that you are both responsible for and committed to. As mediators, it is our goal and duty to put you in control of your dispute and help you settle it in a collaborative, efficient, cost-effective, and mutually satisfying manner.
• Our office is located in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and we serve parties in the five northern counties of Idaho: Kootenai, Shoshone, Bonner, Boundary, and Benewah. Although mediations are best conducted in person, we are also able to conduct mediations via Zoom under certain circumstances. Therefore, if you are outside of the five north Idaho counties and/or are unable to do mediation in person at our physical office, please contact us to discuss and make appropriate arrangements.
• Our firm conducts mediation for the following types of disputes:
• Divorce
• Separation
• Property division/division of assets and debts
• Child custody
• Child support
• Child custody/parenting plan modification
• Child support modification
• Guardianships 
• Termination of Parental Rights and Adoptions

In the most fundamental sense, mediation is simply a negotiation facilitated by a neutral third-party. The goal of mediation is for a neutral third party (the mediator) to help the parties come to an agreement on their own. Rather than imposing a solution, a mediator works with the conflicting sides to explore the interests underlying their positions. Unlike litigation, mediation allows the parties to express their feelings and concerns in a private, confidential and unintimidating setting and affords them the ability to do so in a non-adversarial but direct manner and with adequate time to fully explore their grievances.

Working with parties together and sometimes separately, mediators can try to help them work out a resolution that is voluntary and sustainable. 



In mediation, the parties have the opportunity to describe the issues; discuss their interests, opinions, and feelings; provide each other with information; and explore ideas for the resolution of the dispute. Although the court can mandate that parties participate in mediation—and typically does in family law cases—the process remains voluntary in so far as the parties are not required to come to an agreement. Unlike a judge or arbitrator, a mediator does not have the power to make a decision for the parties but can help the parties find a resolution that is mutually acceptable. The only people who can resolve the dispute in mediation are the parties themselves; if the parties are unable to agree, the mediator simply declares an impasse. 

There are different ways that a mediation can proceed. Mediations start either with the parties together in a joint session or in separate rooms. The mediator describes the mediation process; explains the mediator’s role; helps establish guidelines and standards for the mediation; and sets an agenda for the mediation. Some mediators conduct the entire process in a joint session. However, other mediators move to separate sessions, shuttling back and forth between the parties. Most mediators use a combination of joint sessions and individual sessions. If the parties reach an agreement, the mediator often assists the parties in reducing their verbal agreement to a written contract, which is legally binding and enforceable like any other valid contract.

• Efficiency
• Around 80 percent of cases that are mediated settle and do so on the day of the mediation. 
• Mediation is usually one or a few sessions and either a resolution is achieved or an impasse declared. Conversely, litigation ordinarily lasts for many months, sometimes years. Pursuant to Idaho Court Administrative Rule 57, which sets forth the time standards for litigated cases, the average timeframe for a family law case to resolve is 180 days from the filing of the complaint. 
• Affordability
• Mediation is drastically more affordable than litigation. Agreements may be reached in just a single session or a few sessions and hourly rates for mediation services are usually less, often much less, than hourly rates for attorney services. Additionally, unlike litigation, mediation does not require a hefty initial retainer payment, which is typically $5,000 to $6,000 for family law attorneys in this area, and often needs to be replenished during the course of litigation. 
• Empowers the Parties/Increased Party Involvement
• Mediation invites participation from both parties equally; fosters respectful and productive communication between the parties; and allows the parties to freely air their grievances, state their positions, and express their interests without being confined by the procedural and evidentiary rules governing litigation.  
• Control Over Who Decides the Dispute
• A mediator cannot order the parties to do or agree to anything. A mediator does not make decisions for the parties; a mediator helps the parties make their own decisions. The parties, collectively, are in complete control of whether and how the dispute is resolved. 
• Potential for Creative Problem Solving
• Courts can only provide very limited remedies to parties. However, mediation allows the parties to move away from their legal positions and toward exploring creative solutions that satisfy their underlying interests i.e., what is deeply important to them not only legally but emotionally.  
• Private/Confidential
• Mediation is conducted in a private setting with only the parties (and their attorneys if it is an attorney-assisted mediation), and a mediator. Additionally, statements/actions made during mediation cannot be used against the parties later in court, with limited confidentiality exceptions further described on our website. Mediation is confined to its own time and space. Conversely, litigation is typically conducted in open court with other people present and is public record. 
• Control of the Process
• Mediation is a much more fluid and flexible process than litigation. Litigation is characterized by strict rules and absolute deadlines—mediation is not. Mediation can generally occur at a pace determined by the parties, and there is no pressure to reach an agreement at the end of the first mediation session. Additional mediation sessions can be scheduled as appropriate and according to the parties’ preferences. 
• Control over Outcome
• Mediation reduces both parties’ risk of unanticipated and unwanted results, because only solutions the parties come up with and agree to in writing will be enforced. In litigation, so long as the court does not abuse its discretion it can—and often does—enter orders or judgments neither party expects nor likes. 
• Potential for Preserving or Repairing Relationships/Reducing Conflict and Emotional Turmoil
• The American legal system is fundamentally adversarial and rife with highly aggressive litigants and attorneys alike. To put it bluntly, litigation can be, and often is, brutal, leaving both parties emotionally depleted if not devastated. Mediation is not fundamentally adversarial; it is fundamentally collaborative. Unlike litigation, mediation encourages cooperation; thoughtful, respectful communication; active listening; and interest-based, rather than position-based, resolution. 
• Durability of Agreements 
• Parties are usually satisfied with and honor mediated agreements, because those agreements were generated and mutually agreed upon by the parties themselves. Conversely, parties are usually disappointed with and often flout court orders, judgments, or decrees, because no one likes to be “ordered” to do things, which is precisely what happens when a dispute is settled via court action.

Although there are disadvantages to mediation, they are relatively few and minor and can be minimized if not eliminated. The disadvantages of mediation are:

• Unfamiliarity with the Mediation Process
• Parties are usually relatively unfamiliar with the mediation process compared to litigation. Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution, and although it has gained significant traction in the past few decades, many, if not most, parties are far more familiar with the adversarial, litigation process that pervades the American legal system and is highlighted in popular media. 
• Unequal Bargaining Power
• Although a major responsibility of the mediator is to facilitate discussion between the parties and act as a sort of “referee” to keep the conversation organized and respectful, the mediator must remain neutral at all times and cannot provide legal advice like an attorney or reprimand parties like a judge. Therefore, mediation may not be appropriate when there is a substantial difference in the parties’ bargaining ability or assertiveness. However, such power differentials can be effectively balanced by a skilled mediator and are much less of a concern in an attorney-assisted mediation, when the parties have their attorneys present to advocate. 
• Mediation Requires Cooperation and May Require Direct Communication
• Some mediations are conducted entirely in the form of a “shuttle mediation,” whereby the parties are never in the same room with one another, and the mediator shuttles back and forth between the parties, relaying any suggestions or offers. Although still utilized in family law mediation, these “shuttle mediations” are becoming increasingly uncommon, because they are less efficient and, occasionally, less effective. Mediations are routinely conducted with both parties in the same room, and the mediator “caucuses” (speaking with each party separately and privately) when appropriate. Therefore, the success of mediation depends largely on the parties’ ability to communicate respectfully and probably directly with one another; their willingness to listen to one another’s suggestions; and their cooperation in developing potential solutions to their dispute.  
• Non-litigated Dispute Resolution May Not Discourage Future Claims
• Although mediation may not prevent either party from bringing future legal claims against the other, any resolution achieved in mediation and memorialized in a signed, mediated agreement constitutes a binding agreement, which carries the same force and effect as a contract or final judgment/decree issued by a court of law. Additionally, mediated agreements are exceptionally “durable,” meaning relatively few are contested by either party in the future. Mediated agreements are exceptionally durable, because they are not imposed upon the parties—they are achieved collaboratively by the parties through a voluntary process.