Mediation - pros and cons - would you advise it?

[Karenblixen]

I am desperate to get out of an abusive relationship and weighing up all my options ATM. I am considering mediation to possibly achieve a more positive outcome as well as to keep costs down.

Is it a waste of time, does it only work if you are still on friendly terms with your ex or is it something that can genuinely be a solution?

I am dealing with a very calculating, cruel and unpleasant opponent.

It would have to be from me an absolute no to mediation in your case. He will use that as a further stick to beat you with.

How can he Attila?

To use mediation is to subscribe to the mistaken idea that abuse is related to "misunderstandings" or lack of communication. If discussion and compromise, the mainstay of mediation, could help in any way most domestic violence situations would be long ago resolved because victims of abuse "discuss and compromise" constantly. Mediation assumes both parties will cooperate to make agreements work; the victim has always 'cooperated' with the abuser; the abuser never cooperates.

Mediation can be and is ordered by judges/courts, as can counselling and mental health evaluations. They are tools in the abuser's arsenal to be used against the victim as often as he chooses. In order for mediation to work and to not make situations worse the parties involved must have equal power and must share some common vision of resolution. This is clearly not present when domestic violence has taken place in a relationship.

Mediation practitioners must be alert to the need to interview partners separately with specially designed questions in order to determine if abuse is or has been present. Many domestic violence professionals can train others to screen safely for domestic violence. To not do so risks unsuccessful mediations, at best, and increasing the victim's danger by colluding with the abuser, at worst.

A person who has been terrorized by an abuser is not free to participate in a mediation process with him, even if the mediator(s) assume or believe that they "understand". Being truthful about any of her needs or experiences in the abuser's presence or proximity practically ensures that she is in more danger later.

The mediator is left with a no win: either the victim's danger is increased, or she is not fully or truthfully participating, or both. The well meaning mediator may actually encourage the victim to feel safe enough to share information that could seriously compromise her safety. In any case the whole intent of mediation is lost.

To engage an abuser and a victim in a process that implies equal responsibility is damaging to both. The victim is once again made to feel responsible for the abuser's behavior, and the abuser is allowed to continue to not accept full responsibility for his behaviour choices.

It's not recommended in cases of abuse. I refused it on these grounds.

However, I did go for a couple of sessions four years after separation, and for me it was worthwhile at that stage. I showed willing to the court (ex was constantly making me out to be obstructive for not going to mediation) plus I did get an agreement that we wouldn't physically discipline our dd. Ex denies he's ever done so, of course, but now that he has committed to it, I've been able to get it into our court order and it seems he is thinking twice about now.

So I'm not totally against it. But you have to be very, very careful. Your ex will try to steamroller you. Some mediators are better than others in "getting" abuse.

Definitely ask for shuttle mediation (ie. you're in different rooms, not the same one, and the mediator goes backwards and forwards between you). Be very, very clear in your own mind what you are prepared to agree to, and don't be pushed past those limits. Don't agree to anything until you've had it checked out by a solicitor. It might be possible to get a few bits and pieces agreed, but don't expect everything to be dealt with.

That said, for myself I'm glad I didn't go to mediation when I first left my ex, because he still had massive influence over me (much more than I acknowledged) and I know I would have agreed to things that weren't in my and dd's interests. In your shoes, at this stage, I probably wouldn't go for it.

Thank you both - I can see your points and think you are right in advising against it. I would basically have to be able to stick up for myself while he is there to shout me down as well as dismiss every point / claim I am making.

Just spoke to a mediator to get an idea about what they actually do and again, you are probably right, if it is a compromise at the best of times, it would be even less of a compromise for me.

Mediation relies on everyone round the table being reasonable, decent and willing to compromise. If one party is abusive, likely to dominate proceedings, going to be unreasonable etc. then there is no point. If you're worried that letting lawyers handle it will provoke an angry/dangerous reaction then make sure everyone involved is aware of that and put your safety top priority. As for costs... if you let yourself be bullied into a poor settlement then it will cost you for life. If you pay a lawyer to get you a fair settlement it will only cost more short-term.

Furthermore, abusers are practised liars and more than capable of playing the victim, crying with remorse and so on. The worse the abuser, the more likely they will be more than capable of making a mediator believe them.

There's no honesty in an abuser, so there'll be no honesty in the process no matter how honest the victim or mediator are.

Cogito that's why I gave some thought to mediation, but I have dismissed that now.

All your inputs are very convincing. P's negotiation skills are second to none, the mediator does not know him and would probably either get bullied by him or get tricked into believing him. He can give masterclasses in "bullshitting" (excuse the language, I cannot think of a more appropriate word). The mediator I talked to today would just get steamrollered by him.

Thank you all - brilliant advice!