A family court is convened to decide matters and make orders in relation to family law, such as custody of children. In common-law jurisdictions, ‘family courts’ are statutory creations primarily dealing with equitable matters devolved from a court of inherent jurisdiction, such as a superior court.

In mediation, the spouses maintain control and make all the decisions, instead of relying on a judge or court commissioner to so do.  Issues are resolved much sooner, at far lower costs and with much less stress.

The resulting marital settlement agreement (MSA) is the product of a careful and deliberate process of decision-making by the parties themselves.

Before signing the MSA, each spouse reviews the document with an attorney (many family law attorneys will provide this service for a relatively nominal fee).

This contrasts with divorce court, where the parties and their attorneys squabble about each issue for a year, or several years, until just before trial.  Then, under pressure of the impending trial, the two attorneys put together a settlement consisting of a patchwork of compromises not satisfactory to anyone.

In mediation, the spouses negotiate in a cooperative atmosphere under the guidance of a trained, experienced mediator. The parties agree on spousal support, child support, a realistic and well-thought-out parenting plan, and the division of property, including retirement pensions.
Both parties are heard, and all issues are addressed in a calm and business-like way.  By avoiding court fights over property, parental rights, and support issues, the parties can preserve a relatively amicable relationship, which is especially important when minor children are involved.

During a divorce, the sad fact is that children are often damaged in ways that parents do not even suspect. In divorce court, the children often become pawns in the parents’ fighting over child support payments, and are pitted by one parent against the other in attempting to gain some advantage in the courtroom battles. By the end of a divorce case, the parties are often more distrustful and hostile to each other than they were at the beginning. Consequently, the prospect of good-faith cooperation regarding future child rearing has been greatly diminished. As to ‘winning,’ even if the case goes to trial, neither party will gain lasting satisfaction or vindication. What the court process mainly produces is stress and distraction from what is needed, i.e., cooperation in transitioning from one old family to two separate families, and the rebuilding of relationships.

By contrast, in mediation, the court case is held in abeyance while the spouses participate in a series of private negotiations facilitated by a trained and experienced mediator in a calm atmosphere.  The interests of children are carefully considered, as the parties work together to develop a co-parenting plan that will be most beneficial for all.  The spouses are prepared for their new separate lives, developing a new relationship based on cooperation, good faith, and concern for the welfare of the children. Economic decisions are collaboratively made for the maximum conservation of family resources.

Lastly, in mediation, the spouses work together to achieve a reasonable settlement that the whole family can live with.
Guyana is now headed in the direction of a family court, which is yet another positive development. Unfortunately, the May 2011 deadline for establishing this court has been missed; but Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Carl Singh, has assured that it will shortly become a reality. He explained that the Guyana Family Court Rules that were drafted by local officials have been significantly changed by an expert from Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) to whom they were submitted.
Justice Singh, however, assured that the changes proposed by the T&T expert are being worked on, and within a short period, “we should have a final body of rules.”
“The only thing is that there are some administrative issues to be ironed out, and the personnel for the court have to be identified and appointed,” he added.
While there has been delay in establishing the court, the commitment is clearly there, and it is only a matter of time before the court becomes operative.
However, in future, we need to be more expeditious in matters of such great social importance; because they have a tremendous impact on the lives of people, and by extension, the society and the nation as a whole.