A CASE STUDY: THE CUSTODY MEDIATION SERVICES OF THE LOS ANGELES CONCILIATION COURT*

• Author: Jessica Pearson,Nancy Thoennes,Margaret Little,Robin Appleford
• Published date: 01 December 1985
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1985.tb00111.x
• Date: 01 December 1985

A

CASE STUDY:

THE CUSTODY MEDIATION SERVICES

OF

THE

LOS

ANGELES

CONCi

Ll AT1 ON COURT*

Margaret Little, Nancy Thoennes, Jessica Pearson, and Robin Appleford

Establishment

of

the Conciliation Court

The Los Angeles Conciliation Court was

established by statute in 1939 to “protect

the rights of children and to promote the

public welfare by preserving, promoting and

protecting family life and the institution of

matrimony, and to provide means for the

reconciliation of spouses and amicable set-

tlement of domestic and family controver-

sies.” Although it was the first conciliation

court to be established in California, it re-

mained a small unit within the Domestic

Relations Department and its staff con-

sisted of only two workers, neither of whom

was a licensed marriage or family counselor.

The Court’s evolution

to

its present stature

can be traced to

a

series of changes initi-

ated by its presiding judges. As a court

publication readily acknowledged, “It can-

not be overemphasized that the success of

a conciliation program (depends upon) di-

rect control of an interested and concerned

judge.”

The first series of changes in the Con-

ciliation Court occurred in 1954 under the

direction of Judge Louis Burke who recog-

nized the Court’s potential

to

aid couples

with marital difficulties. He also recognized

that the Conciliation Court needed upgrad-

ing

if

it

was to realize its potential. As

a

result, he added an experienced, trained

counselor with a Master’s degree in psychi-

atric social work to the staff and encour-

aged the bar and bench to refer couples

with an interest in reconciliation to the Con-

ci

I

iat ion Court.

The authors would like to thank Mary Hayes, Kris-

tine Kosak, Cheryl Maxsen, Hugh Mclsaac, Julian

Garcia, Ron Hulbert and the Conciliation Court staff

and counselors

for

their assistance in this Project.

This paper was prepared with the support

of

the

Children’s Bureau (Grant

90-CW-634),

Administra-

tion for Children, Youth and Families, Department

of

Health and Human Services. The Divorce Media-

tion Research Project

was

administered by the As-

sociation

of

Family and Conciliation Courts. The

opinions expressed are solely those

of

the authors.

In many respects, the counseling pro-

gram that emerged foreshadowed the

court’s later operating procedures in the

delivery of mediation services. For example,

in the original counseling program, a crisis

intervention perspective was adopted. Cou-

ples were seen for a single session lasting

one to

two

hours and had the option

of

scheduling a follow-up session. Although

the director of the program initially feared

that this time frame would be inadequate

to properly address complex marital prob-

lems, he quickly became convinced that a

limited amount of time both helped to fo-

cus couples and to limit discussions to

those issues of immediate concern

to

the

bench. Another aspect of the program was

that a reluctant party could, as a last resort,

be subpoenaed to appear for marriage coun-

seling If their spouse was interested in

reconciliation. Finally, while counseling ses-

sions were confidential, agreements gener-

ated in counseling became court orders with

violators subject to contempt actions. Not

surprisingly, citations were rarely ordered

and were used chiefly as “psychological

weapons.”

In the ensuing fifteen years, the Concilia-

tion Court grew and expanded its services.

By 1960, it consisted of 10 counselors who

handled 1500 cases per year. In 1967, it

began offering services at branch courts

located in the county outside downtown

Los Angeles. Reconciliation rates increased

from about

50

percent in the late 1950’s to

70

percent and higher by the late 1960’s.

Even more impressive, the Court’s in-house

follow-up with reconciled couples indicated

that three out of four marriages were still

intact one year after contact with the Con-

ciliation Court appearance.

In

addition, the

staff felt certain that the process benefit-

ted even those who failed to reconcile. As

the director noted, the sessions may have

helped “to close the book gently.” A num-

ber of national magazines published arti-

1

CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEWNOLUME 23, NUMBER ZlDECEMBER

1985