MANDATORY DIVORCE MEDIATION AND JOINT CUSTODY AGREEMENTS: THE NEED FOR INTERPROFESSIONAL COOPERATION AND COMMUNICATION

• Date: 01 June 1985
• Author: Joanna Hamburg
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1985.tb01019.x
• Published date: 01 June 1985

MANDATORY DIVORCE MEDIATION AND JOINT CUSTODY AGREEMENTS:

THE NEED FOR INTERPROFESSIONAL COOPERATION AND COMMUNICATION

Joanna Hamburg*

Historical Background

When the Sieroty

Bill

was passed in the Califor-

nia legislature in

1980,

requiring mandatory media-

tion in all contested custody and visitation cases,

it

included provisions

to

implement this revolutionary

law with the establishment of court-connected me-

diation services throughout the state. However, there

was no specific provision for educating either the

general public or any of the community agencies

which might be providing services

to

parents and

children of divorce. Since mediated disputes often

result in joint custody agreements in the post-divorce

family, and since children

of

joint custody parents

are part of varying time-sharing arrangements,

it

seems especially important that any professionals

delivering community related services

to

these fami-

lies be accurately informed about joint custody and

the mediation process.

At the present time, some

of

the larger jurisdic-

tions in California have instituted programs

to

in-

form the public about how

to

be parents after

divorce. Each month, Custody Options Seminars

are sponsored by the

Los

Angeles Superior Court,

Family Mediation and Conciliation Service; one-day

seminars are sponsored by the San Fernando Val-

ley Bar Association, Family Law Section and the

Conciliation Court; informational brochures for par-

ents are available from Family concilliation Court

Services in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orange

County and other California jurisdictions.

Information is also available

to

attorneys, judges

and mediators through the Association of Family

and Conciliation Courts' publications and by publi-

cation in other professional family law journals. The

University

of

California, utilizing its local extension

programs, offers courses

to

the public and holds

all-day conferences for attorneys, mental health

professionals and members

of

the clergy.

Essential as these efforts are, they have suc-

ceeded in reaching only those people most directly

involved. Yet there is still much

to

be done. Educa-

tion and information sharing is needed

to

up-date

Joanna Hamburg, M.A., formerly with the Family Mediation

Service in Santa Cruz, California and now in private practice in

Beverly Hills, California.

educators, religious leaders, medical and mental

health providers, librarians, and governmental agen-

cies that are in contact with reorganizing families in

crisis and on welfare.

It

was as a result of my experience as a media-

tor dealing with parents and children who were

involved in joint custody arrangements that

I

be-

came interested

in

investigating the impact of man-

datory mediation on the service agencies in the

community

of

Santa Cruz, California.

I

had three

goals for this project. First,

I

wanted

to

know how

each of these agencies was involved in joint cus-

tody agreements. Second,

I

was looking for particu-

lar experiences with families

of

divorce that might

illustrate this interaction. Third,

I

wanted

to

find

ways in which information about court-appointed

mediation and joint custody implications could best

be made available

to

facilitate the maintenance of

these agreements over time.

Educators

I

started by interviewing representatives of three

educational systems: public school superintendents,

private school principals and some religious school

teachers (see Religious Training Providers). Since

national divorce statistics are close

to

50%

and

California divorces number close

to

66%,

it

is possi-

ble that Santa Cruz was not a representative sample.

All

academic leaders reported that only

15%

of

their students were from divorced families.

It

was

distressing

to

learn that public school teachers

interacted daily with children whose families were

sharing parenting between two parental households,

but that the teachers were unaware of the details of

custdy and time-sharing. For example, one privae

school principal said that if parents were separating,

the school would be the last one

to

know about it.

She felt that parents were more apt

to

inform the

school of an adoption in the family than of a divorce,

and that younger children, rather than older children,

were more likely

to

talk about family reorganization.

As for post-divorce parent-school reiations,

school perosnnel are normally in contact only with

the parent who initially registers the child. Even

though a second parent requests school notices,

the child's report cards, calendars and other school

27

CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEWNOLUME

23,

NUMBER llJUNE 1985