If 80% reached settlement through mediation before, compared to 50-60% now, the question is what proportion used mediation before?

Having negotiated short term and long term contracts previously, there is a huge difference in methods used. In a break up with no children, or alimony, this is a once off division of assets where an ADR is unlikely to produce results unless both parties are committed.

However, where there are long term committments, an adverserial court room battle is unlikely to achieve final and lasting results accepted by both parties, and to the financial ruin of both those parties.

So in the case of once off settlements I agree with the author, but not otherwise.

I am astounded by John Zeleznikow's assertion that Courts "... deal with other goals in the civil justice system, such as truth, correctness, openness, transparency and accountability". Since when were Courts concerned with truth?. It is usually the first casualty of any proceedings and is definitely not sought by those engaged in proceedings. Correctness is the silly procedures that lawyers have created among themselves to try to mystify proceedings and prevent others accessing the system for themselves. Transparency - well tell that one to any Family Court Judge and wait for him to fall off his chair - no one knows what goes on behind the doors of secretive Family Courts and no one is allowed to tell - Justice is not being seen to be done - but then Courts are not concerned with Justice, only who wins and who loses - thats how the lawyers make their money. And accountability? - when was the last witness brought before a Court for perjury yet false and misleading evidence is apparent all the time, particularly from so-called `Expert' witnesses.

Chaz my impressions of the legal system when it comes to family law is similar to what you have said.

I don't think that there are easy answers, part of the problem is the winner takes all aspects of child residency. For some it's get the kids and the property goes with it, for others it's loose the kids and loose everything. People who might not otherwise want a legal battle find that the stakes are to high to ignore.

I've not had dealings with those doing the mediation but was forced into dealing with Relationships Australia some years ago and did not find them at all helpful. They made little or no attempt to hide gender bias. Being employed I had to be absent from work far to regularly to attend various sessions with RA at a time when I was not performing at my best anyway due to the emotional pain of the rest of the process. Thanbkfully I had a tolerant management.

I had not abused or neglected my child, I'd always had an active role in his life and I was forced into a long and expensive process to defend continuing to have a meaningful role in his life which was destructive to all involved. It seems strange when I read about a reluctance to remove children from genuinely abusive situations that the family law system leaves so much scope for removing kids from responsible and caring parents.

I've often wondered how much harm is done to children by the association of children with assets in the property settlement, C$A and other benefits post seperation. There must be a better way.

R0bert

RObert - you seem to be one of that very rare breed - fathers who really care for their kids. Sadly there are others who masquerade as such but whose real motivations are as you say more to do with finance and property or to continue their domineering ways, and who form groups such as Father4Tyranny and Fathers4Domination.
Any system is only as good as the competence and attitudes of those charged with operating the system and unfortunately those who run the legal and mediation system are woefully lacking in both. Lawyers charging huge fees for what is at best a mediocre service and mediators and Family Reporters who are allowed to rely entirely on personal biases and prejudices. Objectivity and impartiality are not evident in much of what they do. When the system itself is founded on flawed legislation i.e. the Family Law Act, then it is bound to be a recipe for many disasters which are of course occurring with frighteningly and ever increasing frequency.
But the worst aspect of all of this is that children's rights under international laws are constantly flouted and violated by the law and by those implementing the law, particularly their right to be heard in decisions affecting their lives and to be protected from abuse and exploitation - it amazes me that Rudd has the impertinence to criticise other countries for human rights abuses when such abuses are occurring daily in Australian Courts. Adultism Rules!. and father's rights are paramount above all other considerations.

In a system that we used to have, and lost in 1976, with the Family Law Act 1975, there was a provision in New South Wales for compulsory jury trials, in the Supreme Court if requested. There is no provision in the Family Law Act 1975 for jury trials, so there can be no judicial proceedings. This should have been ended with the mandate given to Big Mal, but in reality, the grant to lawyers of judicial power is Liberal Policy, accepted by the Labor Party at that time when led by a barrister, and approved by Lionel Murphy.

It has been the greatest boon to lawyers fortunes since they got back into Parliament. This article talks about mediation working sixty percent of the time. When jury trials were compulsory, as they were in 1900, ninety five percent settled out of court. That means by mediation. With a Judge, everyone is a liar, and no one really tells the truth in the Family Court. They do not tell the truth in the Federal Magistrates Court either, because there is no reason to do so. There is no way that a person can lie to 12 people and get away with it. A bare faced liar with a law degree and accreditation as a Family Lawyer can lie all day long and the Judge will not stop him.

Affidavits are the tools of liars. When both sides use affidavits, the lies are extreme. Costs are enormous, but if a person must face the Lord, in a court, ( note the lack of a capital letter) in the form of a Justice, with twelve disciples drawn from your local community sitting together as Jesus Christ, in accordance with Matthew 18 verse 20 of the Holy Bible, and repeat the lie orally, the lie shrivels and dies.

The Holy Spirit knows when a person is telling the truth, and when a jury is present, there is an act of Holy Worship going on. The Labor Party knew there was a problem. Between 1993 and 1996 they legislated to fix it: but were blocked

PTB
Facing the Lord in a Court will make no difference to the truth. Forget the fact that you are proposing a fictional character (from an atheist point of view) as a paragon of truth, there will always be those who lie or distort the truth for personal gain with or without the fear of a God entity.

Facing the Lord within the Church system did not deter the paedophiles nor those that would extort their parishioners, how will inclusion of the Lord in the justice system be any different?

It all still comes down to personal self respect or one's personal honour code no matter how that code is derived (through religious belief or otherwise).